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

                                                           Changes to FERC 725S by RD23-1-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-725S modification          Current.............         Current                            Total change due to RD23-1-000
                                inventory...........       inventory
                                (hours).............     (responses)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of EOP-011-1..........  18,000..............              12  -18,000 hrs.; -12 responses.
Updates to EOP-011-3..........  ....................  ..............  +11,946.67 hrs.; +370.67 responses.
Addition of EOP-012-1.........  ....................  ..............  +192,690 hrs.; +2,784 responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Titles: FERC-725S, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-
Power System; EOP Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Burden hours per response may also include any methods for
improvement not limited to trainings, drills, simulations, testing,
etc.
    \171\ TOP=Transmission Operator, BA=Balancing Authority,
GO=Generator Owner, GOP=Generator Operator and RC=Reliability
Coordinator.
    \172\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a
combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of
2022, for 75% of the average of an Electrical Engineer (17-2071)-
$77.02, mechanical engineers (17-2141)-$67.79. $77.02 + $67.79/2 =
72.405 x .75 = 54.303 ($54.30-rounded) ($54.30/hour) and 25% of an
Information and Record Clerk (43-4199) $42.35 x .25% = 10.5875
($10.59 rounded) ($10.59/hour), for a total ($54.30 + $10.59 =
$64.89/hour).
    \173\ Reduce the estimate for balancing authorities from EOP-
011-2 down from previous 60 hours to 6 hours for EOP-011-3.
    \174\ Reduce the estimate for reliability coordinators from EOP-
011-2 down from previous 40 hours to 28 hours for EOP-011-3.
    \175\ Reduce the estimate for transmission operators from EOP-
011-2 down from previous 50 hours to 10 hours for EOP-011-3.
    \176\ Reduce the estimate for balancing authorities from EOP-
011-2 down from previous 50 hours to 10 hours for EOP-011-3.
    \177\ Reduce the estimate for reliability coordinators from EOP-
011-2 down from previous 20 hours to 14 hours for EOP-011-3.
    \178\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a
combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of
2022, for 75% of the average of an Electrical Engineer (17-2071)-
$77.02, mechanical engineers (17-2141)-$67.79. $77.02 + $67.79/2 =
72.405 x .75 = 54.303 ($54.30-rounded) ($54.30/hour) and 25% percent
of an Information and Record Clerk (43-4199) $42.35 x .25% = 10.5875
($10.59 rounded) ($10.59/hour), for a total ($54.30 + $10.59 =
$64.89/hour).
    \179\ The estimates for the generator owner and generator
operator are being moved from the current EOP-011-2 to the new EOP-
012-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: Modifications to Existing Collections of Information in
FERC-725S.
    OMB Control Nos: 1902-0270 (FERC-725S).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion (and proposed for deletion).
    Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standards EOP-011-3
(Emergency Operations), and EOP-012-1 (Extreme Cold Weather
Preparedness and Operations) are part of the implementation of the
Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the
reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power system. Specifically, the
revised and new Reliability Standards ensure that generating resources
are prepared for local cold weather events and that entities will
effectively communicate the information needed for operating the Bulk-
Power System.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed NERC's proposal and
determined that its action is necessary to implement section 215 of the
FPA.
    104. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    105. Comments concerning the information collections and
requirements approved for retirement in this Final Rule and the
associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this
docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons,
comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
[email protected].

V. Document Availability

    106. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    107. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    108. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
    The Commission orders:
    (A) Reliability Standards EOP-011-3 and EOP-012-1, the associated
violation risk factors and violation severity levels, and the newly
defined terms Generator Cold Weather Critical Component, Extreme Cold
Weather Temperature, and Generator Cold Weather Reliability Event, are
hereby approved, as discussed in the body of this order.
    (B) NERC is hereby directed to develop and submit, within 12 months
of the date of issuance of this order, modifications to Reliability
Standard EOP-012-1 as discussed in the body of this order.
    (C) NERC is hereby directed to work with Commission staff to submit
a plan no later than 12 months after the date of issuance of this order
on how it will collect and assess data prior to and on the
implementation of the following elements of Reliability Standard EOP-
012-1: (1) generator owner declared constraints and explanations
thereof; and (2) the adequacy of the Extreme

Cold Weather Temperature definition, as discussed in the body of this
order.
    (D) NERC is hereby directed to assess annual and event-based data
submittals to address the following elements of Reliability Standard
EOP-012-1: (1) generator owner declared constraints and explanations
thereof; and (2) the adequacy of the Extreme Cold Weather Temperature
definition, and to submit periodic reports to the Commission providing
the results of the assessments, as discussed in the body of this order.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: February 16, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04875 Filed 3-8-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 55136]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-43]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 25. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2013-
0745 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Menkin, ANM-113,
Standardization Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>425-227-2793; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Andrea
Copeland, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.; Washington, DC 20591;
email andrea.copeland @faa.gov;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2013-0745.
    Petitioner: Boeing Commercial Airplane Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.841(a)(2) and (a)(3) at
Amendment 87.
    Description of Relief Sought. The petitioner requests relief from
the requirements pertaining to cabin decompression following
uncontained engine failures for the Boeing Model 737-7, 737-8, and 737-
9 airplanes.
[FR Doc. 2013-21832 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


26, 52 or 78 weeks) in the diet at levels of 0, 40, 150 or 600 ppm
[equivalent to 0, 3.9, 13.7 or 56.0 mg/kg/day (males) or 0, 4.2, 16.2 or
65.2 mg/kg/day (females) for 104 weeks.

Mortality was highest during the final quarter of the study but was
comparable in all dosed and control groups (45 % in the control, 52% in
the low-dose group, 54% in the mid-dose group and 50% in the high-dose
group).  There was no sex-specific effect on mortality.  The only
clinical sign reported was marginally increased hyperactivity in the
high-dose females prior to Week 78.   There were no compound-related
effects on body weight, food and water consumption, hematology, clinical
chemistry, organ weights, or gross and histologic (including tumors)
pathology.  No other evidence of toxicity or carcinogenicity was seen.

Since there was an overall lack of a toxic response at the doses tested,
the LOAEL is >600 ppm (equivalent to 56.0 mg/kg/day); a NOAEL was not
established.  However, the aborted mouse carcinogenicity study (MRID No.
00163815) demonstrated that at a slightly higher maximum tolerated dose
(MTD) of 1000 ppm, the test article was lethal to 15% of the mice after
only 13 weeks.  Thus, the maximum dose used in the completed study (600
ppm) was very close to the MTD.  A repeat study is not justified.

This chronic study in the mouse is acceptable (guideline) and satisfies
the guideline requirement for a carcinogenicity study (OPPTS 870.4200,
OECD 451) in the mouse.

A.3.3.2 	Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study in Rats

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a chronic toxicity study (MRID 00163813),
fenpropathrin as S-3206 (91.4 and 92.%, Batch Nos. 01113 and 20514,
respectively) was administered to groups of 50 CD-1 rats/sex/dose (main
groups) or 15 rats/sex/dose (satellite groups for interim sacrifices at
26, 52, 78 and 104 weeks) in the diet at levels of 0, 50, 150, 450 or
600 ppm [equivalent to 0, 1.93, 5.71, 17.06 or 22.80  mg/kg/day (males)
or 0, 2.43, 7.23, 19.45 or 23.98  mg/kg/day (females)] for 108 weeks
(males) or 115 weeks (0, 50, 150 or 450 ppm, females) or 52 weeks (600
ppm, females).

Mortality was highest among females receiving 450 ppm (2%/16% M/F) and
600 ppm (10%/46% M/F) during the first 26 weeks; no deaths occurred in
the control group.  Consequently, all surviving high-dose females were
terminated at 52 weeks. For the remainder of the study, mortality was
not dose related and generally occurred at a higher rate in the control
than the treated groups.  The only dose-related clinical sign was body
tremors in the 600-ppm group males (less than or equal to 6% affected
between weeks 1 and 10) and females (less than or equal to 65% affected
between weeks 1 and 52).  At 450 ppm, less than or equal to 5% of the
females were affected with body tremors between weeks 1 and 14.  These
tremors occurred primarily in the morning.  Body weight gain, food and
water consumption were similar for all groups but food efficiency was
impaired for the 600 ppm females only.  There were no signs of adverse
effects on ophthalmology or clinical pathology.  Organ weight effects
included: a doubling in the absolute and relative pituitary weights (600
ppm males), significant increases in the absolute and relative kidney
and adrenal weights (600 ppm males) and decreased absolute and relative
ovary weights (600 ppm females).  However, no compound-related gross or
microscopic lesions associated with these organ weight anomalies were
found in either sex.  Minimal axonal degeneration was reported for both
sexes of all groups (including the controls) with a slightly higher
incidence in the high-dose group but there was no correlation between
tremors and axonal degeneration.  Both males and females had an increase
in anterior pituitary adenomas but the incidence rate was not
dose-related and was lower than the control.  Thus, there was no
evidence of a carcinogenic effect at any dose up to and including 600
ppm.  Based on these considerations, the increased mortality at 600 ppm
is evidence that the maximum tolerated dose was administered.

Accordingly, the LOAEL for males is 600 ppm (equivalent to 22.80
mg/kg/day), based on increased mortality and body tremors; the LOAEL for
females is 450 ppm (equivalent to 19.45 mg/kg/day), based on increased
mortality and body tremors.  The NOAEL for males and females was 450 ppm
(equivalent to 17.06 mg/kg/day) and 150 ppm (equivalent to 7.23
mg/kg/day), respectively.

This chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in the rat is acceptable
(guideline) and satisfies the guideline requirement for a chronic oral
study (OPPTS 870.4300; OECD 453) in the rat.

A.3.3.3		Oral Chronic Toxicity Study in Dogs

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a chronic toxicity study (MRID 00143130),
fenpropathrin as S-3206 (92.5% Lot no. 20514) was administered to groups
of four male and four female Beagle dogs/sex/dose in the diet at levels
of 0, 100, 250 or 750 ppm (equivalent to 0, 2.5, 6.25 or 18.75 mg/kg
bw/day1) ad libitum for 52 weeks.

One high-dose male was found dead during week 32.  Prior to death, the
animal was languid, thin and exhibited ataxia, tremors and polypnea
(excessive respiration).  There were numerous gross findings (including
soft brain, enlarged and congested liver, enlarged lymph nodes,
ulcerations and erosions of the oral cavity, perforations of the tongue
and  multiple skin sores) and histopathological findings (including
adrenal congestion and hemorrhage, pulmonary edema and congestion,
liver, kidney and stomach congestion, decreased spermatogenesis,
prostate atrophy, thymus atrophy, and multiple lesions of the oral
cavity.  There were, however, no other deaths and no gross or
histopathological lesions in any other treatment group.  Clinical signs
included tremors (750 ppm, during week 1 to termination; 250 ppm
starting at week 6 and sporadically, thereafter); ataxia  (750 ppm,
starting at week 2 and consistently observed from week 8 to32); and
languid appearance (750 ppm, weeks 7 through 48).  Mean body weight of
high-dose dogs was reduced less than or equal to 11% in males and 20% in
females.  No effect was seen on body weight in the lower treatment
groups. No significant differences in food consumption were observed.
There were no treatment-related effects on hematology, clinical
chemistry, urinalysis, opthalmoscopy, clinical pathology or organ
weight.  With the exception of the high-dose male that died on study, no
compound-related gross or histopathological effects were noted at any
dose.

From these findings, the LOAEL is 250 mg/kg/day (~6.25 mg/kg/day), based
on tremors and ataxia in males and females; the NOAEL is 100 ppm (~2.5
mg/kg/day).

This chronic study in the dog is acceptable (guideline) and satisfies
the guideline requirement for a chronic oral study (OPPTS 870.4100; OECD
452) in the dog.

A.3.4	Mutagenicity Studies

A.3.4.1	In Vitro Bacterial Reverse Gene Mutation

Gene mutation assays were negative for mutagenicity.   A bacterial
Reverse Mutation Assay Test using Salmonella typhimurium TA 1535,
TA1537, TA1538, TA98 and TA100 and Escerichia coli Wp2 uvrA (MRID
00163818) at 0, 10, 50, 100, 500, or 5000 µg/plate with and without S9
was negative for mutagenicity though there was evidence of insolubility
at higher concentrations.

A.3.4.2	In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation

In an in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test (MRID 00126832), there
was no clear evidence of induced mutant colonies in mouse lymphoma cells
L51785 over background.  Tests were conducted in the absence of S-9 at
50.3, 84.5, 141.9, 238.2, and 400 µg/ml and in the presence of S9 at 0,
30, 47.5, 75.3, 119.4, 189.2, and 300 µg/mL.

A.3.4.3	In Vitro Mammalian Cytogenetics

≥ 30µg/mL (–S9) and precipitation was observed at 1000 µg/mL
(+S9).

A.3.4.4	In Vitro DNA Damage

Bacillus subtilis strains M45 rec- and H17 were exposed to 0, 10, 50,
100, 1000, and 5000 ug/paper disk (MRID 00126831).  The test consisted
of applying the cultured suspension of bacteria (0.1 mL of H17 or 0.2 mL
of M45) to the top of an agar plate, then a paper disk containing the
test substance was placed into the center of the plate.  The diameter of
growth inhibition zone was measured after 24 hours.  No inhibition zone
was noted at any level.

A.3.4.5	In Vitro Sister Chromatid Exchange Assay

Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were cultured for 24 hours in Ham’s
F12 medium containing 3x10-6-1x10-4 M fenpropathrin with and without S9.
 There was no increase in sister chromatid exchange.

A.3.5	Neurotoxicity Studies

A.3.5.1	Acute Neurotoxicity Screening Battery

In an acute neurotoxicity study (MRID 47345605), fenpropathrin (92.0%
a.i.; Lot No. 050213G) in corn oil was administered once via gavage (5
mL/kg) to 12 Sprague-Dawley rats/sex/group at dose levels of 0, 3, 6,
15, or 30 mg/kg.  Neurobehavioral assessment (functional observational
battery [FOB] and motor activity testing) was performed on 12
rats/sex/group at pre-dosing and Days 0 (approximately 3 hours
post-dosing; time of peak effect), 7, and 14.  At study termination, 6
rats/sex/group were anesthetized and perfused in situ for
histopathological examination.  The tissues from 6 animals in the
control and 30 mg/kg groups were subjected to neuropathological
evaluation of brain and peripheral nervous system tissues.  Acceptable
positive control data were provided.

No compound-related effects were observed in mortality, clinical signs
of toxicity, body weight, body weight gain, motor activity, brain weight
and morphology, or gross and neuropathology in either sex.

At 30 mg/kg, the following FOB effects (# affected/12 vs. 0/12 controls)
were noted at 3 hours post-dosing (time of peak-effect):  (i) slight
tremors in 10 animals of each sex during the open-field observations;
(ii) clonic convulsions (whole body tremors) in one rat of each sex
during the open-field observations, and (iii) slight tremors in 2 males
and 1 female during the home cage observations.  These behavioral
changes were apparently reversible, as all animals appeared normal by
Day 7.

Findings at 15 mg/kg were limited to slight tremors in 2 females at 3
hours post-dosing during the open-field observations.  In the absence of
other neurotoxic effects in this group and the absence of any findings
in the 15 mg/kg males, this finding is considered equivocal for
neurotoxicity.

There was evidence of neurotoxicity observed at 30 mg/kg.

The LOAEL was 30 mg/kg based on slight tremors and clonic convulsions
(whole body tremors) in both sexes at the time of peak-effect.  The
NOAEL is 15 mg/kg.

The study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement (OPPTS 870.6200a; OECD 424) for an acute
neurotoxicity study in rats.

A.3.5.2	Subchronic Neurotoxicity Screening Battery

In a subchronic neurotoxicity study (MRID 47345607), fenpropathrin
(92.0% a.i.; Lot No. 050213G) was administered daily in the diet to 12
Sprague-Dawley rats/sex/group at dose levels of 0, 60, 190, or 570 ppm
(equivalent to 0/0, 4/5, 13/15, and 38/50 mg/kg/day; M/F) for 90 days.
Neurobehavioral assessment (functional observational battery [FOB] and
motor activity testing) was performed on all animals at pre-dosing and
Weeks 3, 7, and 12.  At study termination, all animals were anesthetized
and perfused in situ for neuropathological examination, brain weights
and measurements were recorded.  The tissues from 6 animals/sex in the
control and 570 ppm groups were subjected to neuropathological
evaluation of brain and peripheral nervous system tissues.  Acceptable
positive control data were provided.

No compound-related effects were observed in ophthalmoscopic
examinations, motor activity, brain weight and morphology, or gross and
neuropathology in either sex.

At 570 ppm, one female was found dead on Day 7 and displayed tremors and
hypersensitivity to sound during the first 6 days of test article
administration.  The following clinical signs of toxicity were observed
(# affected/12 vs. 0/12 controls): (i) tremors (10 males and 12
females); (ii) hypersensitivity to sound (12 rats of each sex); and
(iii) popcorn seizures (4 females).  The frequency of tremors and
hypersensitivity to sound was greater in the females compared to males.

Body weights were decreased throughout the study by 11-13% in the males
and by 8-13% in the females.  Cumulative body weight gains were also
decreased throughout the study by 18-40% in the males and by 29-62% in
the females.  Overall (Weeks 0-13) body weight gains were decreased by
19% in the males and by 29% in the females.  These decreases in body
weight and cumulative body weight gain were corresponded with the 10-19%
decrease in mean food consumption throughout the study in the males.
Mean food efficiency (bw gained as a % of food consumed) was decreased
by 27% in the males during Week 0-1 and by 29-59% in the females during
Weeks 0-1, 1-2, and 4-5 compared to controls.

Treatment-related FOB effects were predominantly observed in the 570 ppm
females and included the following (# affected/11 females vs. 0/12
controls):  During the home cage observations, slight to markedly coarse
tremors were noted in 3-5 females throughout the treatment period.
During the handling observations, soft and flabby muscle tone was noted
in 3 females during Week 3.  In the open-field, slight to markedly
coarse tremors were noted in 3-7 females throughout the treatment period
and in 1 male at Week 3; slightly to moderately impaired mobility was
noted in 2-3 females during Weeks 3 and 12 and in 2 males at Week 3;
clonic convulsions (whole body tremors) were observed in 3 females
during Weeks 3 and 7; slight to moderately impaired gait score was noted
in 2-3 females throughout the treatment period, and 1 male displayed
body dragging during Week 3; abnormal gait including walking on tiptoes
was noted in 2 females at Week 12 and hunched body was noted in 3
females at Week 12; and the mean number of rears was increased by 91% in
the males during Week 3 and by 100% in the females during Week 12.
During the sensory observations, a more energetic startle response was
noted in 3 females during Weeks 3 and 12, and slightly uncoordinated
air-righting reflex was noted in 1-3 females during Weeks 3 and 12.
Also during the air-righting reflex testing, 1 additional female landed
on its side or back during Weeks 3 and 7, respectively.  During the
neuromuscular observations, mean hindlimb grip strength was decreased by
27% in the females during Week 3; rotarod performance was decreased by
51-68% in the females throughout treatment; and hindlimb footsplay
decreased by 34% in the females during Week 3.  Additional findings
observed at this dose in the home cage or open-field included ataxia in
2 females during Week 3 and in 1 female at Week 7, whole body tremors in
1 female at Weeks 3 and 12, biting the cage or self in 2 females at Week
12, and ‘popcorn’ seizure in 1 female each at Weeks 3 and 7.

The LOAEL for neurotoxicity was 570 ppm (equivalent to 38/50 mg/kg/day,
M/F) based on tremors, convulsions, impaired gait, and related findings
in the FOB predominantly in the females.  The NOAEL is 190 ppm
(equivalent to 13/15 mg/kg/day, M/F).

The study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the
guideline requirement (OPPTS 870.6200b; OECD 424) for a subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats.

A.3.5.3		Developmental Neurotoxicity Study

In a developmental neurotoxicity study (MRID 47345609), fenpropathrin
(92.0% a.i.; Lot No. 050213G) was administered in the diet to 25
presumed pregnant Sprague Dawley (Crl:CD[SD]) rats/dose from gestation
day (GD) 6 through lactation day (LD) 21 at doses of 0, 40, 100, or 250
ppm (equivalent to 0, 3, 8, and 19 mg/kg/day during gestation, and 0, 7,
16, and 40 mg/kg/day during lactation).  The pups were not dosed.  Dams
were allowed to deliver naturally and were killed on LD 21.  On
post-natal day (PND) 4, litters were randomly standardized to 8
pups/litter (4/sex where possible), and the remaining offspring were
sacrificed without further examination.  Subsequently, pups were
allocated to the following subsets.  For Subset A (20 pups/sex/dose
group), the following parameters were examined:  functional
observational battery (FOB) on PND 4, 11, 21, 35, 45, and 60; motor
activity on PND 13, 17, 21, and 61; auditory startle on PND 20 and 60;
and learning and memory beginning on PND 62.  Fifteen animals/sex/dose
group were selected from Subset A for brain weight evaluations on PND
72; of these, 10 animals/sex from the controls and 250 ppm groups were
selected for neuropathological and morphometric evaluations on PND 72.
All Subset A animals were also examined for balanopreputial separation
or vaginal patency as appropriate.  For Subset B (20 pups/sex/dose
group), learning and memory testing was initiated on PND 25.  For Subset
C, 15 animals/sex/dose group were selected for brain weight evaluations
on PND 21; of these, 10 animals/sex from the controls and 250 ppm groups
were selected for neuropathological and morphometric evaluations on PND
21.

In the dams, there were no effects of treatment observed on mortality,
body weights, body weight gains, food consumption, reproductive
parameters, gestation duration, or macroscopic pathology.

Treatment-related tremors were observed in 24/25 dams at 250 ppm during
lactation.  The onset and duration were somewhat variable among the
group, and one female displayed tremors on GD 13.  The severity of the
tremors generally increased from slight to moderate/severe as lactation
progressed, corresponding to a higher test compound consumption on a
mg/kg basis during lactation compared to gestation.  Similarly, during
the LD 10 modified FOB, a greater number of 250 ppm dams were observed
with slight tremors compared to controls.  One 250 ppm female was
observed with moderately coarse tremors and slightly impaired mobility
on LD 10 and splayed hindlimbs on LD 21.

The LOAEL for maternal toxicity is 250 ppm (equivalent to 19/40
mg/kg/day during gestation/lactation, respectively), based on tremors
during lactation.  The NOAEL is 100 ppm (equivalent to 8/16 mg/kg/day
during gestation/lactation, respectively).

There were no effects of treatment on the number of pups born, sex ratio
at birth, live litter size on PND 0, post-natal survival indices, the
number of pups found dead, killed in extremis, and/or missing, or on the
general physical condition of the pups.

During lactation, increased numbers of pups that were small in size were
observed in the 250 ppm litters.  This finding was often observed on
multiple occasions in the affected pups, and correlated with decreased
pup body weights.  Offspring pre-weaning body weights were decreased by
10-16% in both sexes from PND 7 through 21.  Interval body weight gains
for the corresponding intervals were also decreased by 11-21%.

The LOAEL for offspring toxicity is 250 ppm (equivalent to 19/40
mg/kg/day during gestation/lactation, respectively), based on pups small
in size and decreased body weights and body weight gains during the
pre-weaning period.  The NOAEL is 100 ppm (equivalent to 8/16 mg/kg/day
during gestation/lactation, respectively).

There were no effects of treatment on the FOB, motor activity, learning
and memory, gross or microscopic pathology, or brain morphometric
measurements.

On PND 60, the mean overall maximum response amplitude (VMAX) and
average response amplitude (VAVE) were increased, and the latency to
maximum response was decreased in the 250 ppm females.  The VMAX and
VAVE values exceeded the 75th quartile values of the historical control
data; and the TMAX value was equal to the 25th quartile value of the
historical control data.  On PND 21, absolute brain weights were
decreased by 6% in the 250 ppm males.

The LOAEL for developmental neurotoxicity is 250 ppm (equivalent to
19/40 mg/kg/day during gestation/lactation, respectively), based on
increased mean overall maximum startle response amplitude and average
response amplitude in the females, and decreased absolute brain weights
in the males.  The NOAEL is 100 ppm (equivalent to 8/16 mg/kg/day during
gestation/lactation, respectively).

This study is acceptable/guideline and meets the requirements (OPPTS
870.6300; OECD 426) for a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats.

A.3.6 	Other Studies

A.3.6.1	Metabolism and Pharmokinetics Study

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a metabolism study (MRID 43476801), groups of
five male and five female Crl:CD®BR® VAF/Plus (Sprague-Dawley) rats
were dosed by oral gavage with radiolabeled S-3206 (fenpropathrin) by
three protocols.  They were dosed with S-3206 radiolabeled on either the
alcohol [alcohol-14C]-S-3206 (98.7% a.i.; Lot No. C-91-089)] or acid
[acid-14C]-S-3206 (98.5% a.i.; Lot No. C-90-039) portion of the
molecule.  In Experiment I, rats received 14 daily oral low-doses of 2.5
mg/kg/day of unlabelled S-3206 followed by a 15th dose of either the
alcohol or acid radiolabeled S-3206.  In Experiments II and III, groups
of rats received a single dose of either of the two radiolabeled test
articles at 2.5 mg/kg (II) or 25 mg/kg (III).  No clinical signs were
seen in any rats.

Elimination for both sexes was similar in the single low and high-dose
experiments (II and III), with about one-third of the dose being
eliminated in the urine (II - 30-40%; III - 28-35%) and the balance in
the feces (II and III - 65-69%).  In the multiple dose experiment (I),
half of the elimination was in the urine (52-56%) and the remainder in
the feces (46-55%) for both sexes.  The half-life was 11-16 hours in the
urine, and 7-9 hours in the feces.  In all three experiments, >99% of
the administered dose was excreted after 168 hours (7 days).  The small
percentage of radiolabel found in the tissues was mostly in the fat.

The major biotransformations included oxidation at the methyl group of
the acid moiety, hydroxylation at the 4'- position of the alcohol
moiety, cleavage of the ester linkage, and conjugation with sulfuric
acid or glucuronic acid.

Four metabolites were found and characterized in the urine of rats dosed
with alcohol-radiolabel.  The major metabolites were the sulfate
conjugate of 3-(4'-hydroxyphenoxy)benzoic acid and 3-phenoxybenzoic acid
(22-44% and 3-9% of the administered dose, respectively).  Eight
metabolites were found in the urine of rats dosed with acid-radiolabel,
but only four were characterized.  The major urinary metabolites of the
acid-labeled fenpropathrin were TMPA-glucuronic acid and TMPA-CH2OH
(11-26% and 6-10% of the administered dose, respectively).  None of the
parent chemical was found in urine.

The major elimination products in the feces included the parent chemical
(13-34% of the administered dose) and 4 metabolites.  The fecal
metabolites (and the percentage of administered dose) included
CH2OH-fenpropathrin (9-20%), 4'-OH-fenpropathrin (4-11%),
COOH-fenpropathrin (2-7%), and 4'-OH-CH2OH-fenpropathrin (2-7%).

This study in the rat is acceptable (guideline), and satisfies the
guideline data requirement for a metabolism study (OPPTS 870.7485, OECD
417) in the rat.

A.3.6.2	Dermal Penetration Study

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a dermal penetration study (MRID 43433801),
skin penetration and excretion of radiolabelled fenpropathrin  [99%
radiochemical purity; specific activity of 166 mCi (6.14 Gbq/g; Lot no.
C-89-049] were measured following single applications to the clipped
skin of male Sprague-Dawley (CD/BR) rats.  Groups of thirty rats were
randomly assigned to three dose levels: 0.03% (lowest concentration
encountered by applicators in the field), 1.5% (recommended field
dilution), and 30% (concentration found in Danitol 2.4 EC).  The
corresponding doses were 0.03, 1.5, and 30 mg/rat (calculated doses were
0.0013, 0.0663, and 1.26 mg/cm2).  Within each of the three dose levels
were six termination groups of five rats each which were sequentially
sacrificed at intervals of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 10, and 24 hours.

Mean dermal absorption for the 10-hour interval was 33.3, 20.1, and 17.6
% in the low, mid, and high-dose groups, respectively.  Elimination was
primarily through the urine, and secondarily through the feces.
Absorption:elimination equilibrium was reached in as little as 4 hours
at the low dose, and under 10 hours at the mid and high-doses.
Elimination at the 24-hour interval for the low, mid, and high-doses was
18.2%, 8.2%, and 4.1% in the urine, and 5.8%, 1.8%, and 0.4% in the
feces, respectively.  The rates of elimination for the low, mid, and
high concentrations were 0.88%/hour, 0.38%/hour, and 0.19%/hour in the
urine (between the 4 and 24 hour intervals), and 0.39%/hour, 0.13%/hour,
and 0.029%/hour in the feces (between the 10 and 24 hour intervals),
respectively.  Residual radioactivity in the carcass was 9.0%, 3.7%, and
1.3%, respectively.  Although considerable radioactivity was found in
the application site skin, very little was found in the blood and
non-application site skin.  Group mean radioactivity recovery for any
given dose/interval group ranged from 96.8% to 110.8%.

Dermal absorption increased with dose concentration, but not at a
proportional rate.  The percentage of dose absorbed decreased as dose
concentration increased.  That is why the percentage of dose found in
the urine, feces, blood, carcass, and application site skin was greatest
in the low-dose group and least in the high-dose group.  If a recovery
phase had been included in the study protocol, the total body burden
could be expected to decrease rapidly upon removal of the dose in the
urine and feces.

This study is Acceptable (guideline), and satisfies the data requirement
for a dermal absorption study (OPPTS 870.7600) in the rat.

A.4  Immunotoxicity Study Guidance

Guideline Number: 870.7800

h

萏Ӭ萑ﬔ葞Ӭ葠ﬔ摧ǵ?

h

8

9

;

P

_

€

š

œ

Ù

Ú

î

ï

õ

þ

hb

9

_

€

š

¹

ò

õ

/

2

^

e

‡

§

©

,

-

.

/

7

E

V

`

a

g

r

t

{

¦

§

¨

©

º

¼

½

Î

Ï

Ò

Ó

Ô

Ú

å

æ

ç

ê

ë

þ

!©

»

¼

ç

㄀$摧屫D	̀Ĥ␱愀Ĥ摧憍±ᘀþ

ÿ

(

h

@

hj@

hj@

hj@

hj@

h

$

愀Ĥ摧ដ¢

$

$

}欀ɤ

kdÆ

$

kd³

$

$

üøüðéüåáÜÏÇÏÃ¼²«²«²¢¼¢•Œ¼¢†¢¼¢†¢¼¢
†|u|†¢¼¢†¢¼¢

j

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

혈Fᴃἀ⼍괛$Ȇ

਀&䘋

਀&䘋

&

‰

~

€

‘

ž

Ÿ

¬

®

Á

Î

Ï

Ü

Ý

Þ

ç

ô

õ

N

k

l

m

Œ

ù

ú

µ

‰

µ

‰

µ

‰

µ

‰

瑹䙙

h†

愀Ĥ摧䭘¢

Ø	@

Ø	@

騆

š

š

 h

 h

h

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

@

瑹偳

愀Ĥ摧偳

摧偳

摧偳

š

š

愀Ĥ摧偳

摧偳

摧偳

š

š

愀Ĥ摧偳

摧偳

摧偳

š

š

愀Ĥ摧偳

š

š

愀Ĥ摧偳

š

š

愀Ĥ摧偳

š

š

愀Ĥ摧偳

š

š

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

kd

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

摧偳

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

摧偳

摧偳

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

摧偳

摧偳

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

摧偳

摧偳

㐀ۖĀ̊Q儃昀Ĵ瑹偳

摧偳

5

l

m

 h¼

 hÖ

愀Ĥ摧偳؀nt under 40 CFR Part 158 as a part of the data
requirements for registration of a pesticide (food and non-food uses).

The Immunotoxicity Test Guideline (OPPTS 870.7800) prescribes functional
immunotoxicity testing and is designed to evaluate the potential of a
repeated chemical exposure to produce adverse effects (i.e.,
suppression) on the immune system. Immunosuppression is a deficit in the
ability of the immune system to respond to a challenge of bacterial or
viral infections such as tuberculosis (TB), Severe Acquired Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS), or neoplasia.  Because the immune system is highly
complex, studies assessing functional immunotoxic endpoints are helpful
in fully characterizing a pesticide’s potential immunotoxicity.  These
data will be used in combination with data from hematology, lymphoid
organ weights, and histopathology in routine chronic or subchronic
toxicity studies to characterize potential immunotoxic effects.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

These animal studies can be used to select endpoints and doses for use
in risk assessment of all exposure scenarios and are considered a
primary data source for reliable reference dose calculation. For
example, animal studies have demonstrated that immunotoxicity in rodents
is one of the more sensitive manifestations of TCDD
(2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) among developmental, reproductive,
and endocrinologic toxicities.  Additionally, the EPA has established an
oral reference dose (RfD) for tributyltin oxide (TBTO) based on observed
immunotoxicity in animal studies (IRIS, 1997).

How could the data impact the Agency's future decision-making?

If the immunotoxicity study shows that the test material poses either a
greater or a diminished risk than that given in the interim decision’s
conclusion, the risk assessments for the test material may need to be
revised to reflect the magnitude of potential risk derived from the new
data.

If the Agency does not have these data, a 10X database uncertainty
factor might be applied for conducting a risk assessment from the
available studies.

Appendix B:  Tolerance Summary for Fenpropathrin

Table B.1.   Tolerance Summary for Fenpropathrin.

Commodity	Established/Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance
(ppm)	Comments; Correct Commodity Definition

Tolerances Proposed Under PP#4E6867

Stone Fruit, Crop Group 12 (except Cherry)	5.0	1.4	Fruit, stone, group
12

Cherry, sweet and tart	--	5.0	Cherry, sweet

Cherry, tart

Tolerance recommendation is based on >5x differences of maximum field
trial residues between cherry and remaining stone fruit representative
crops

Tree Nuts (including Pistachio), Crop Group 14	0.10 (nutmeats)	0.10	Nut,
tree, group 14

	5.0 (almond hulls)	4.5	Almond, hulls

Tolerance That Needs to be Proposed Under PP#4E6867

Pistachio	--	0.10	Tolerance recommendation is based on residue data
translated from the Nut, Tree, Crop Group 14.

Tolerances Proposed Under PP#6E7066

Avocado	1.0	1.0

	Black Sapote	1.0	1.0	Tolerance recommendations are based on residue
data translated from avocado.

Canistel	1.0	1.0

	Mamey sapote	1.0	1.0

	Mango	1.0	1.0

	Papaya	1.0	1.0

	Sapodilla	1.0	1.0

	Star apple	1.0	1.0

	Barley, grain	0.30	Withheld	HED will complete its review of the
proposed barley use upon submission of a barley processing study.

Barley, hay	2.5	Withheld

	Barley, straw	4.5	Withheld

	Tolerances Proposed Under PP#7E7298

Caneberry subgroup 13A	--	12	Caneberry subgroup 13-07A

Olive	--	5.0

	Reassessment of Tolerances for Ruminant Commodities

Cattle, fat	1.0	0.05	The available data indicate that the tolerances may
be decreased.

Cattle, meat byproducts	0.1	0.01

	Cattle, meat	0.1	0.01

	Goat, fat	1.0	0.05	The available data indicate that the tolerances may
be decreased.

Goat, meat byproducts	0.1	0.01

	Goat, meat	0.1	0.01

	Hog, fat	1.0	Remove	The available data indicate that tolerances for hog
commodities are not needed.

Hog, meat byproducts	0.1	Remove

	Hog, meat	0.1	Remove

	Horse, fat	1.0	0.05	The available data indicate that the tolerances may
be decreased.

Horse, meat byproducts	0.1	0.01

	Horse, meat	0.1	0.01

	Milk, fat (reflecting 0.002 ppm in whole milk)	2.0	0.05	Milk, fat

Sheep, fat	1.0	0.05	The available data indicate that the tolerances may
be decreased.

Sheep, meat byproducts	0.1	0.01

	She灥敭瑡〇ㄮ〇ܱ〮܇഍഍഍ㄉ潄敳挠湯敶獲潩‽
〲瀠浰㴠ㄠ洠⽧杫搯祡ऍ‱潄潣癮牥楳湯映捡潴⁲潦
⁲杭欯⽧慤⁹‽倠䵐椠桴楤瑥†〴഍ഃЍ഍ഃЍ
഍഍倓䝁⁅ᔠ഍倍条–䅐䕇ᐠ㜲―景ጠ丠䵕䅐䕇⁓㘔
ᔵ഍഍慐敧ጠ倠䝁⁅ㄔ―景ጠ丠䵕䅐䕇⁓㘔ᔵ഍഍഍

഍倍条–䅐䕇ᐠ㈶  of   NUMPAGES  65

Acute RfD = 6.0 mg/kg/day = 0.06 mg/kg/day

100 (UF)


\103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to
Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), which
requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \104\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \105\ and (3) not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \105\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \106\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission
intends to further consider whether the proposal to increase the
monthly fees for MIAX Express Network Full Service Ports is consistent
with the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities
exchange under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider
whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act
and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an
exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities;
not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers; and not impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections
19(b)(3)(C) \109\ and 19(b)(2)(B) \110\ of the Act to determine whether
the Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of
the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule change.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages
interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change to
inform the Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \110\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\111\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of whether the Exchange has sufficiently
demonstrated how the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections
6(b)(4),\112\ 6(b)(5),\113\ and 6(b)(8) \114\ of the Act. Section
6(b)(4) of the Act requires that the rules of a national securities
exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using
its facilities. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed, among other things, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
also provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
    \112\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \113\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \114\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any
other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following aspects of
the proposal and asks commenters to submit data where appropriate to
support their views:
    1. Cost Estimates and Allocation. The Exchange states that it is
not asserting that the Proposed Access Fees are constrained by
competitive forces, but rather set forth a ``cost-plus model,''
employing a ``conservative methodology'' that ``strictly considers only
those costs that are most clearly directly related to the provision and
maintenance of the Full Service MEO Ports.'' \115\ Setting forth its
costs in providing the Proposed Access Fees, and as summarized in
greater detail above, the Exchange projects $897,084 in aggregate
annual estimated costs for 2021 as the sum of: (1) $40,166 in third-
party expenses paid in total to Equinix (1.80% of the total applicable
expense) for data center services; Zayo Group Holdings, for network
services (0.90% of the total applicable expense); SFTI for connectivity
support, Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap and others (0.90%
of the total applicable expense) for content, connectivity services,
and infrastructure services; and various other hardware and software
providers (0.90% of the total

applicable expense) supporting the production environment, and (2)
$856,918 in internal expenses, allocated to (a) employee compensation
and benefit costs ($783,513, approximately 8.55% of the Exchange's
total applicable employee compensation and benefits expense); (b)
depreciation and amortization ($64,456, approximately 2.25% of the
Exchange's total applicable depreciation and amortization expense); and
(c) occupancy costs ($8,949, approximately 1.80% of the Exchange's
total applicable occupancy expense). Do commenters believe that the
Exchange has provided sufficient detail about how it determined which
costs are most clearly directly associated with providing and
maintaining the Proposed Access Fees? The Exchange describes a
``proprietary'' process involving all Exchange department heads,
including the finance department and numerous meetings between the
Exchange's Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Head of
Strategic Planning and Operations, Chief Technology Officer, various
members of the Legal Department, and other group leaders, but do not
specify further what principles were applied in making these
determinations or arriving at particular allocations. Do commenters
believe further explanation is necessary? For employee compensation and
benefit costs, for example, the Exchange calculated an allocation of
employee time in several departments, including Technology, Back
Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business Strategy Development,
Trade Operations, Finance, and Legal, but do not provide the job titles
and salaries of persons whose time was accounted for, or explain the
methodology used to determine how much of an employee's time is devoted
to that specific activity. What are commenters' views on whether the
Exchange has provided sufficient detail on the identity and nature of
services provided by third parties? Across all of the Exchange's
projected costs, what are commenters' views on whether the Exchange has
provided sufficient detail on the elements that go into Full Service
MEO Port costs, including how shared costs are allocated and attributed
to Full Service MEO Port expenses, to permit an independent review and
assessment of the reasonableness of purported cost-based fees and the
corresponding profit margin thereon? Should the Exchange be required to
identify for what services or fees the remaining percentage of un-
allocated expenses are attributable to? Do commenters believe that the
costs projected for 2021 are generally representative of expected costs
going forward (to the extent commenters consider 2021 to be a typical
or atypical year), or should an exchange present an estimated range of
costs with an explanation of how profit margins could vary along the
range of estimated costs? Should the Exchange use cost projections or
actual costs estimated for 2021 in a filing made in 2022, or make cost
projections for 2022?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See supra Section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Revenue Estimates and Profit Margin Range. The Exchange provides
a single monthly revenue figure as the basis for calculating the profit
margin of 38%. Do commenters believe this is reasonable? If not, why
not? The Exchange states that their proposed fee structure is
``designed to cover its costs with a limited return in excess of such
costs,'' and that ``revenue and associated profit margin [ ] are not
solely intended to cover the costs associated with providing services
subject to the proposed fees,'' and believes that a 38% margin is a
limited return over such costs.\116\ The profit margin is also
dependent on the accuracy of the cost projections which, if inflated
(intentionally or unintentionally), may render the projected profit
margin meaningless. The Exchange acknowledges that this margin may
fluctuate from month to month due to changes in the number of ports
purchased, and that costs may increase. They also state that the number
of ports has not materially changed over the prior months and so the
months that the Exchange has used as a baseline to perform its
assessment are representative of reasonably anticipated costs and
expenses.\117\ The Exchange does not account for the possibility of
cost decreases, however. What are commenters' views on the extent to
which actual costs (or revenues) deviate from projected costs (or
revenues)? Do commenters believe that the Exchange's methodology for
estimating the profit margin is reasonable? Should the Exchange provide
a range of profit margins that they believe are reasonably possible,
and the reasons therefor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See supra Section II.A.2.
    \117\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reasonable Rate of Return. Do commenters agree with the Exchange
that its expected 38% profit margin would constitute a reasonable rate
of return over cost for Full Service MEO Ports? If not, what would
commenters consider to be a reasonable rate of return and/or what
methodology would they consider to be appropriate for determining a
reasonable rate of return? What are commenters' views regarding what
factors should be considered in determining what constitutes a
reasonable rate of return for Full Service MEO Ports? Do commenters
believe it relevant to an assessment of reasonableness that the
Exchange's proposed fees for Full Service MEO Ports, even at the
highest tier, are still less than or similar to those of other options
exchanges to which the Exchange has compared the Proposed Access Fees?
Should an assessment of reasonable rate of return include consideration
of factors other than costs; and if so, what factors should be
considered, and why?
    4. Periodic Reevaluation. The Exchange has addressed whether it
believes a material deviation from the anticipated profit margin would
warrant the need to make a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b) of the
Act to increase or decrease the fees accordingly, stating that ``[a]ny
requirement that an exchange should conduct a periodic re-evaluation on
a set timeline of its cost justification and amend its fees accordingly
should be established by the Commission holistically, applied to all
exchanges and not just pending fee proposals, such as this filing,''
and that ``[i]n order to be fairly applied, such a mandate should be
applied to existing market data fees as well.'' \118\ In light of the
impact that the number of subscribers has on Full Service MEO Port
profit margins, and the potential for costs to decrease (or increase)
over time, what are commenters' views on the need for exchanges to
commit to reevaluate, on an ongoing and periodic basis, their cost-
based Full Service MEO Port fees to ensure that they stay in line with
their stated profitability target and do not become unreasonable over
time, for example, by failing to adjust for efficiency gains, cost
increases or decreases, and changes in subscribers? How formal should
that process be, how often should that reevaluation occur, and what
metrics and thresholds should be considered? How soon after a new Full
Service MEO Port fee change is implemented should an exchange assess
whether its subscriber estimates were accurate and at what threshold
should an exchange commit to file a fee change if its estimates were
inaccurate? Should an initial review take place within the first 30
days after a Full Service MEO Port fee is implemented? 60 days? 90
days? Some other period?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See supra Section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Tiered Structure for Full Service MEO Ports Fees. The Exchange
states that proposed tiered-pricing structure is reasonable, fair,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is the model
adopted by the Exchange when it

launched operations for its Full Service MEO Port fees, and further,
that the amount of the fee is directly related to the Member or non-
Member's TCV resulting in higher fees for greater TCV.\119\ What are
commenters' views on the adequacy of the information the Exchange
provides regarding the proposed differentials in fees? Do commenters
believe that the proposed price differences are supported by the
Exchange's assertions that it set the level of each proposed new fee in
a manner that it equitable and not unfairly discriminatory?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \120\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\121\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\122\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \121\ See id.
    \122\ See id.
    \123\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(rejecting the Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations
without sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings
to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised
herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the
Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO.
See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249,
S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by March 18, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 1,
2022.
    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 protected]. Please include
File No. SR-PEARL-2022-04 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-PEARL-2022-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-04 and should be submitted on
or before March 18, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
April 1, 2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\125\ that File Numbers SR-PEARL-2022-04 be, and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03964 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Internet Daemon Owner < idaemon@ mountain. epa. go v>

01/ 17/ 2006 01: 29 PM To Dave Mckee/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject ( 016132919) Web Comments COMMENTS_ OF_ REQUESTOR Bad, Air Quality Particulate Matter from all dust roads especially on Clinton Township, Wayne Co, Burns Road that I live on which is a through Roadway between State Route 4002 and 170. There are about 80 property owners with a summer Camp the had about 900 campers during the Summer. Last Year it closed , but I understand will reopen this year. With the Trucks, cars and Buses traveling Burns Road during the camp season its a regular dust Storm. Windows have to be closed at all times and children playing or people walking all dirt Roadways breathe in a lot of Particulate Matter that will surely effect them in later years especially the children.

All supervisors that lived on dirt roads usually get them blacktopped when they take office. The secretary, believe it or not runs Clinton Township and is in office for the past 30 years plus. Her private dirt road has been turned into a Township Road to the best of my knowledge was when her husband was one of the Supervisors. This road was the last dead end road added to the Township road system and was already blacktopped twice, ( the others still breathe dust) which I understand with a cul de sac in their barnyard only for there personal use.

All we are asking for is that the Supervisors grade the roadway as soon as possible in the spring like other Townships and use oil recommended by the DEP. to keep the dust down.

Two Supervisors are Dairy farmers and voted to do township road work only six hours a day five days a week. It seems that the Citizens are last to there farm work and they will not hire any contractors to do the work. There is very little change in the Supervisors from election to election.

Please eradicate the Particulate Matter ( dirt road dust) and keep Air Quality clean for innocent children. Thank you for your time and patience. Concerned Citizen.

EMAIL_ OF_ REQUESTOR fober@ soantel. net NAME_ OF_ REQUESTOR John A. Fobes Jr. ORG_ OF_ REQUESTOR Private Citizen submit Send Comment  WARNING NOTICE This electronic mail originated from a federal government computer system of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). Unauthorized access or use of this EPA system may subject violators to criminal, civil and/ or administrative action. For official purposes, law enforcement and other authorized personnel may monitor, record, read, copy and disclose all information which an EPA system processes. Any person's access or use, authorized and unauthorized, of this EPA system to send electronic mail constitutes consent to these terms.

 This information is for tracking purposes only. Submitting script: / cgi bin/ mail. cgi Submitting host: <IP_ADDRESS> ( <IP_ADDRESS>) Browser: Mozilla/ 4.0 ( compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90; Avant Browser [ avantbrowser. com]; FunWebProducts) Referred: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ contact. html TSSMS: ttnnaaqs Mail to File: naaqs. txt


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8748]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0150]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Point Pleasant Canal, Point
Pleasant, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Bridge Avenue Bridge (Route 13)
across Point Pleasant Canal, mile 3.9, Point Pleasant, NJ. The
temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate electrical transformer,
and back-up diesel motor repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from March 1, 2018 through 3:30 p.m.
on March 2, 2018. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be
used from 7 a.m. on February 26, 2018, until March 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0150] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6422, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Jersey Department of Transportation,
who owns and operates the Bridge Avenue Bridge (Route 13) across the
Point Pleasant Canal, mile 3.9, Point Pleasant, NJ, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulation. This
temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate electrical transformer,
and back-up diesel motor repairs. The bridge is a lift bridge, and has
a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 30 feet
above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-
navigation position from 7 a.m. on February 26, 2018, to 3:30 p.m. on
March 2, 2018. Point Pleasant Canal is used by a variety of vessels
including recreational vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast
Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic
on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
    The bridge will not be able to open during the maintenance period.
The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-04165 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


In the proposal for modified/reconstructed sources, EPA proposed net output-based emission limits for utility boilers and IGCC units, and requested comment on whether to use either gross or adjusted gross output-based standards in the final rule. EPA also proposed gross output-based emission limits for NGCC turbines, and requested comment on whether to use a net output-based approach in the final rule. Multiple commenters (0144, 0145, 0152, 0157, 0171, 0178, 0183, 0193, 0197, 0203, 0214, 0226, 0245, 0260) supported gross output-based standards, rather than net output-based standards, for all unit types.
Gross energy output includes the gross electric or mechanical output from the affected facility minus any electricity used to power the feedwater pumps plus 75 percent of the useful thermal output. Net energy output includes the net electric or mechanical output from the affected facility plus 75 percent of the useful thermal output, where net electric output is the amount of gross generation minus the electricity used to operate the plant (i.e., auxiliary loads); such uses include fuel handling equipment, pumps, fans, pollution control equipment, other electricity needs, and transformer losses. See Memorandum from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EGU NSPS Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603), Amended Regulatory Text (Proposed Applicability). June 2014.
Multiple commenters (0171, 0178, 0260) argued that EPA had offered no justification for treating modified and reconstructed fossil fuel boilers and IGCC units differently than newly constructed units. The commenters noted that EPA had proposed standards for modified and reconstructed boilers and IGCC units as net output emission rates, while proposing standards for newly constructed units as gross output emission rates.
Commenter 0157 argued that EPA had not justified the dichotomy in standards in the modified/reconstructed rule--proposing a net output standard for coal-fired units and a gross output standard for natural gas-fired combustion turbines. The commenter stated that it appeared to be explicitly designed to favor natural gas at the expense of coal. The commenter argued that EPA should remain focused on technology rather than fuel choices.
In supporting the use of gross output standards, commenter 0193 stated that gross output standards are fairer and more reliable than net output standards to measure emissions and compliance. Moreover, the proposed use of periodic fuel sampling as an acceptable monitoring method provides appropriate compliance assurance. Determining the net output of an EGU is complicated and prone to errors.
Commenter 0214 stated that the use of gross output allows the plant operator to account for electrical, mechanical, and thermal energy use by the plant, giving operators the needed flexibility to design systems in the most efficient and economic manner. Gross MWh output is also straightforward, simple, consistent, and directly measured. Furthermore, market drivers will continue to ensure that power producers operate efficiently because utilities have a strong incentive to ensure the gap between gross and net output is as small as possible, maximizing the return on investment. Commenter 0226 stated that it is sensible to consider all of a unit's inside-the-fence options for efficiency improvement.
Commenter 183 stated that due to the various emission controls that could be installed on a unit, the commenter believes the best measure of heat rate uses gross heat rate; otherwise, units heavily controlled by emission systems are penalized by their degraded heat rate (when measured on a net basis) due to comparatively greater auxiliary loads.
Commenter 0197 stated that a gross output-based standard is more appropriate than the net output-based standard because well-controlled fossil fuel-fired EGUs consume more energy to operate air pollution control devices (i.e., scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction devices, and particulate controls) than uncontrolled units. The gross output-based standards are appropriate for both new and existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs. The commenter stated that the definition of gross output should allow for 100 percent of the useful thermal energy being produced and used to be included, as opposed to 75 percent of useful thermal energy being produced as proposed. The commenter recommended that, regardless of whether the final rule uses a gross output or net output-based standard, 100 percent of the useful thermal energy should be credited.
Multiple commenters (0157, 0171, 0178, 0214, 0260) noted that a gross output-based standard is also consistent with the monitoring and reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 75 and with other programs (e.g., Acid Rain program), which already rely on gross megawatt data. Commenter 0245 indicated that using a gross output-based standard would avoid sending conflicting reports to the same agency. The commenter indicated it would also avoid factoring in the added parasitic loads from emissions control retrofits, avoiding potential future NSPS modification issues.
Multiple commenters (0144, 0145, 0171, 0178, 0203, 0214, 0260) argued that net-based standards are not appropriate for modified and reconstructed EGUs. Some commenters (0171, 0178, 0203, 0260) noted that pollution control technology often imposes significant parasitic load requirements on an EGU. If EPA were to adopt a standard that was calculated on a net basis, that level would need to be even higher to account for parasitic load. However, given the potential range of control options and corresponding parasitic load requirements, arriving at such a standard would be impractical and would not further the objective of the proposal.
Commenter 0203 argued that EPA should base its prescribed standards on an analysis that examines those standards in the context of source category achievability, with performance adequately demonstrated considering costs, energy and non-air health impacts, i.e., by conducting an appropriate inquiry into the correct standard(s) of performance. Stated another way, EPA should base net output standards on net output analyses, and gross output standards on gross output analyses, avoiding a mixing of the two very different measures of emissions. Such an approach decreases the likelihood of an arbitrary rulemaking. Therefore, as the Agency proceeds forward with this rulemaking, gross output-based standards should be used for both categories of EGUs (boilers and turbines).
Commenter 0203 noted that heat rate improvement projects--which EPA seeks to require in its NSPS proposals, may trigger NSR review, as the pollution control exclusion no longer applies to NSR review (the exclusion is still available for purposes of NSPS review). If so, remaining coal-fired units could have emissions for purposes of NSR evaluated on a net utilization basis, which would not (unfairly so) include parasitic loads caused by increased pollution controls. The commenter stated that EPA did not address this concern in the proposal and argued that EPA should not exacerbate it by using net output standards for utility boilers and IGCC units.
Commenter 0214 noted that net MWh output is facility-specific and difficult to accurately calculate. For example, many facilities have transformers that support multiple units at the facility, making unit-level reporting difficult. More importantly, station electric services may come from other outside sources to supply lighting, well pumps, and other ancillary loads. Additionally, some station services are dedicated per unit, while other station services may be measured at a facility level. Examples of facility-wide equipment that often serve more than one unit include coal handling equipment such as unloaders and conveyors, electric fire pumps, cooling tower makeup pumps, and pollution control equipment (e.g., FGD and baghouses). Accurately measuring and reporting all of these sources would require complex calculations and would naturally lead to variations among affected sources as well as inconsistencies in both reporting CO2 emission rates and complying with the proposed CO2 standard. The commenter said a net output-based standard would also discourage the deployment of technologies that could successfully reduce CO2 emissions at a lower cost, such as CHP and co-generation.
Commenter 0145 noted that, as currently proposed, utility boilers and IGCC units must demonstrate compliance with the applicable CO2 emissions/MWh standard based on the gross CO2 emissions from the affected facility divided by the facility's net energy output. Under this methodology, electricity that is generated by the affected facility but used to operate plant equipment such as pumps, fans and pollution control equipment is not used in determining compliance with the standards, notwithstanding the fact that the CO2 emissions associated with the generation of this electricity is included in the compliance calculation. The commenter said this would result in a calculated emission rate that is artificially high. This would be particularly problematic for affected facilities that have installed advanced pollution control systems that have large power demands. These facilities, which typically have installed controls under other CAA programs such as Regional Haze or the New Source Review Program, would have a more difficult time meeting the standards than similar uncontrolled facilities. To address this and have a compliance demonstration that accurately measures an affected facilities actual CO2 emission rate, the commenter said the final rule should base compliance for utility boilers and IGCC units on a gross emissions-gross energy output basis.
Commenter 0144 noted that, while EPA stated it was proposing net output CO2 emission rates, throughout the rule gross output was discussed. For example, EPA explained that the rule would require monitoring of "gross output," expressed in MWh. EPA also stated that part 75 monitoring systems used together with the "gross output" over a period of 12 months (a rolling average updated after each new operating month) would be used to calculate the average CO2 mass emissions rate. Further, initial compliance would be calculated by dividing the sum of the hourly CO2 mass emissions values by the total "gross output." In addition, recordkeeping requirements would require owners or operators to keep records of the calculations performed to determine the total CO2 mass emissions and gross output for each operating month. Commenter 0144 argued that this net output-based reporting compliance alternative should be rejected. As EPA had already noted in the section 111(b) rulemaking, the only data available on CO2 emissions from EGUs currently is in the form of gross output from CEMS, and thus requiring reporting on a net output basis would be inconsistent with the current requirements, would add unwarranted costs and burden to utility reporting, and also "would have little impact...in terms of environmental performance." Thus, the commenter questioned why EPA was even requesting comment in this regard.
 The EPA points the commenter to the Response-to-Comment (RTC) document for 111(b) newly constructed EGUs and to the preamble for more detailed discussion on this comment. Both documents are available in the rulemaking dockets.
Commenters 0169 and 0242 recommended that EPA develop a consistent standard (gross or net output-based) across all unit types, amongst all three proposed rules to minimize the collection of data in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Commenter 0169 noted that EPA proposed a gross-output approach in the NSPS rulemaking, proposed a net-output approach in the ESPS rulemaking, and proposed a net-output based approach for fossil fuel-fired boilers and IGCC units in the modified/reconstructed source rule but requested comment on using a gross-output approach. In addition, commenter 0242 noted that EPA proposed gross output-based standards for modified/reconstructed natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines to be consistent with standards for newly constructed units as proposed in January 2014, but requested comment on whether the form of the standard should be set on a net-output basis. The EPA stated that both rules, the modified/reconstructed source rule and new source rule, would take the same approach once finalized.
Commenter 0169 argued that EPA's intermixing of gross and net throughout this rule and the rest of the CPP makes it very difficult for sources to uniformly demonstrate heat rate amongst the rules. Furthermore, EPA's intermixing of gross and net throughout this proposed rule brings into question whether the BSER determinations reviewed are based on gross or net data and whether the emission rates reviewed are actually gross emission rates for the best plants since the rates proposed are only achievable if these were based on gross emission rates. In addition, the requirements in the modified source rule that require collection of both gross and net-based data are unnecessarily burdensome.
Commenter 0242 believes that if net output is the basis of the standard, then EPA should include a mechanism to account for and credit the parasitic load that is inherent to the operation of environmental control devices, which provide environmentally desirable benefits, if EPA chooses to continue to pursue the section 111(b) and 111(d) rulemakings.
The EPA points the commenter to the Response-to-Comment (RTC) document for 111(b) newly constructed EGUs and to the preamble for more detailed discussion on this comment. Both documents are available in the rulemaking dockets.
Commenter 0241 supported net output-based standards. The commenter noted that the proposed CO2 emissions limits for the utility boiler and IGCC category are expressed in units of mass of CO2 per unit of net energy output, specifically in lb CO2/MWh-net. The proposed CO2 emissions limits for natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines are expressed in units of mass of CO2 per unit of gross energy output, specifically in lb CO2/MWh-gross. The EPA solicited comment on whether a net-output based approach should be used for the natural gas-fired units. Commenter 0241 suggested that the EPA be consistent in its approach and use net output for all units, since this is more characteristic of the unit's actual operation.
 The EPA points the commenter to the Response-to-Comment (RTC) document for 111(b) newly constructed EGUs and to the preamble for more detailed discussion on this comment. Both documents are available in the rulemaking dockets.