[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75257-75262]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0295; FRL-9902-17]

Flutriafol; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
flutriafol in or on coffee, bean, green and coffee, instant. Cheminova
A/S, c/o Cheminova Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 11, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 10, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0295, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0295 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 10, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0295, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at  http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33785) (FRL-9386-2),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E8074)
by Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova, Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700,
Arlington, VA 22209-2510. The petition requested that EPA establish
import tolerances for residues of the fungicide flutriafol, in or on
coffee, bean, green at 0.20 parts per million (ppm) and coffee, instant
at 0.30 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova, Inc., the registrant, which
is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, tolerances
for coffee, green bean have been revised from 0.20 to 0.15 ppm. The
reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for flutriafol including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with flutriafol follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The hazard characterization and toxicity endpoints for risk
assessment remain unchanged from the assessment upon which the final
rule published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47296)
(FRL-9348-8) is based. Specific information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused by flutriafol as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in
the

preamble to that final rule and its supporting documents as well as in
the most recent human health risk assessment, Flutriafol: Human-Health
Risk Assessment for Tolerances in/on Imported Coffee, which can be
found in www.regulations.gov, under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-
0295-0004.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD) and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flutriafol used for
human risk assessment is shown in the table contained in Unit III.B. of
the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register issue
of August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47296) (FRL-9348-8).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flutriafol, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flutriafol tolerances in 40 CFR
180.629. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flutriafol in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for flutriafol. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat In America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA made the following assumptions for the
acute exposure assessment: tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level
residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern for risk
assessment, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), modeled drinking water
estimates, and DEEM\TM\ ver. 7.81 default processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's (NHANES/
WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008 as well. As to residue levels in food,
EPA made the following assumptions for the chronic exposure assessment:
Tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to
account for the residues of concern for risk assessment, 100 PCT,
modeled drinking water estimates, and DEEM\TM\ ver. 7.81 default
processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that flutriafol does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for flutriafol. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The proposed tolerance in
or on imported coffee will not impact residues in the U.S. drinking
water. However, there are registered uses for application of flutriafol
in the U.S.A and the Agency used screening level water exposure models
to estimate residues in drinking water. These estimates were then
incorporated in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for
flutriafol. The simulation models take into account data on the
physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of flutriafol.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flutriafol for acute exposures
are estimated to be 48.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
310 ppb for ground water.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments the EDWC's are
estimated to be 5.70 ppb for surface water and 202 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 310 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 202] ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
The drinking water models and their descriptions are available at the
EPA internet site:  http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Flutriafol is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Flutriafol is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of

toxicity and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach based on a
common mechanism of toxicity for the conazoles. For information
regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found
to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    Triazole-derived pesticides can form the metabolite 1,2,4-triazole
(T) and two triazole conjugates triazolylalanine (TA) and
triazolylacetic acid (TAA). To support existing tolerances and to
establish new tolerances for triazole-derivative pesticides, EPA
conducted an initial human-health risk assessment for exposure to T,
TA, and TAA resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of
any triazole-derived fungicide as of September 1, 2005. The risk
assessment was a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in
terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a
maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and
non-dietary exposures (i.e., high-end estimates of both dietary and
non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional
10X Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF) for the
protection of infants and children. The assessment included evaluations
of risks for various subgroups, including those comprised of infants
and children. The Agency's complete risk assessment can be found in the
propiconazole reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497 and an update to
the aggregate human health risk assessment for free triazoles and its
conjugates may be found in this current docket, Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2013-0295 entitled ``Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated
Dietary (Food + Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment to Address the
Revised Tolerance for Residues of Fenbuconazole in Peppers.''

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The potential impact of in
utero and perinatal flutriafol exposure was investigated in three
developmental toxicity studies (two in rats, one in rabbits) and two
multi-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats. In the first of
two rat developmental toxicity studies, a quantitative susceptibility
was observed (delayed ossification or non-ossification of the skeleton
in the fetuses) at a lower dose than maternal effects. In the second
rat developmental study, a qualitative susceptibility was noted.
Although developmental toxicity occurred at the same dose level that
elicited maternal toxicity, the developmental effects (external,
visceral, and skeletal malformations; embryo lethality; skeletal
variations; a generalized delay in fetal development; and fewer live
fetuses) were more severe than the decreased food consumption and body-
weight gains observed in the dams. For rabbits, intrauterine deaths
occurred at a dose level that also caused adverse effects in maternal
animals. In the two-generation reproduction studies, a qualitative
susceptibility was also seen. Effects in the offspring (decreased
litter size and percentage of live births, increased pup mortality, and
liver toxicity) can be attributed to the systemic toxicity of the
parental animals (decreased body weight and food consumption and liver
toxicity).
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for flutriafol is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that flutriafol is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Signs of neurotoxicity
were reported in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies at the
highest dose only; however, these effects were primarily seen in
animals that were agonal (at the point of death) and, thus, are not
indicative of neurotoxicity. In addition, there was no evidence of
neurotoxicity in any additional short-term studies in rats, mice, and
dogs, or in the long-term toxicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs.
    iii. There are no concerns or residual uncertainties for prenatal
and/or postnatal toxicity. Although there is evidence for increased
qualitative susceptibility in the prenatal study in rats and rabbits
and the two-generation reproduction study in rats, there are no
concerns for the offspring toxicity observed in the developmental and
reproductive toxicity studies for the following reasons:
     Clear NOAELs and LOAELs were established in the fetuses/
offspring for each of these studies;
     The dose-response for these effects are well-defined and
characterized;
     Developmental endpoints are used for assessing acute
dietary risks to the most sensitive population (females 13-49 years
old) as well as all other short- and intermediate-term exposure
scenarios; and
     The chronic reference dose is greater than 300-fold lower
than the dose at which the offspring effects were observed in the two-
generation reproduction studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to flutriafol in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flutriafol.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
flutriafol will occupy 27% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
flutriafol from food and water will utilize 36% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Because there are no

residential uses for flutriafol, the chronic aggregate risk includes
food and drinking water only.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Since flutriafol is not
registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure, the short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk from exposure to flutriafol through food and water and will
not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, flutriafol is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans''. EPA does not expect flutriafol to pose a cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to flutriafol residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography/Nitrogen/
Phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) for proposed tolerances) are available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for flutriafol in or on coffee,
bean, green at 0.15 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances
established for flutriafol in the United States.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the analysis of the residue field trial data and
application of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) tolerance calculator procedure, a green coffee bean
tolerance of 0.15 ppm for residues of flutriafol is appropriate. The
tolerance for coffee, green bean is harmonized with the Codex MRL. The
Agency determined that the tolerance level of 0.15 ppm would be
appropriate so as to harmonize with the MRL.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flutriafol,
()-[alpha]-(2-fluorophenyl)-[alpha]-(4-fluorophenyl)-1H-
1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol in or on coffee, bean, green at 0.15 ppm and
coffee, instant at 0.30 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 2, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.629, in the table in paragraph (a), add alphabetically
entries for ``Coffee, green, bean'' and ``Coffee, instant,'' and revise
footnote 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.629  Flutriafol; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Coffee, green, bean \1\.................................            0.15
Coffee, instant \1\.....................................            0.30

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of October 22, 2013.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-29556 Filed 12-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16661]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southern
Company Services, Inc.
    The Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP) Process
First Quarter Meeting.

March 26, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. (Central Time)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket Nos. ER13-83, ER13-1928, Duke Energy Carolinas/Carolina Power &
Light
Docket Nos. ER13-908, ER13-1941, Alabama Power Company et al.
Docket Nos. ER13-913, ER13-1940, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket Nos. ER13-897, ER13-1930, Louisville Gas and Electric Company
and Kentucky Utilities Company
Docket Nos. ER13-107, ER13-1935, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket Nos. ER13-80, ER13-1932, Tampa Electric Company
Docket No. ER13-86, Florida Power Corporation
Docket Nos. ER13-104, ER13-1929, Florida Power & Light Company
Docket No. ER13-1922, Duke Energy Florida (Progress Energy Florida)
Docket Nos. ER13-195, ER13-198, ER13-1927, ER13-1936, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07142 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60032-60034]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78698; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

August 26, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 12, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III 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 Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to delete the reference to ``Test Center'' fees from
the Continuing Education Fees sub-section of the Regulatory Fees
section of the Fees Schedule to reflect the fact that the Exchange no
longer offers test center delivery of the Regulatory Element of the
Exchange's continuing education requirement; as of July 5, 2016,
delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Exchange's continuing
education requirement is entirely Web-based.
    On August 8, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') approved SR-FINRA-2015-015 and the proposed changes
to FINRA Rule 1250 therein, which, among other things, provided for
Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element of certain of FINRA's
continuing education programs.\3\ Pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-015,
effective October 1, 2015, Web-based delivery has been available for
the Regulatory Element for the S106 Continuing Education Program for
Investment Company and Variable Contracts Representatives, the S201
Continuing Education Program for Registered Principals and Supervisors,
and the S901 Continuing Education Program for Operations
Professionals.\4\ Web-based delivery of the S101 General Program, the
continuing education program for all other registration categories,
became available on January 4, 2016, as contemplated by SR-FINRA-2015-
015. In addition, pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-015, test center delivery
of the Regulatory Element of the S101, S106, S201, and S901 continuing
education programs was to end after January 4, 2016, but in no case
more than six months after January 4, 2016 or July 5, 2016.\5\ Since
July 5, 2016 has passed, going forward, the Regulatory Element of the
above-listed continuing education programs is no longer administered at
test centers and is only offered via Web-based delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31,
2015), 80 FR 47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule
Change to Provide a Web-based Delivery Method for Completing the
Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements) (SR-
FINRA-2015-015).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Test-center delivery of the Regulatory Element will be
phased out by no later than six months after January 4, 2016. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75581 (July 31, 2015), 80 FR
47018 (August 6, 2015) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To
Provide a Web-Based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory
Element of the Continuing Education) (SR-FINRA-2015-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange utilizes FINRA's continuing education programs for its
own continuing education requirements. Consistent with SR-FINRA-2015-
015, the Exchange recently filed SR-CBOE-2015-084 \6\ relating to
continuing education. In the filing, the Exchange proposed
substantially similar changes to its rules as those set forth in SR-
FINRA-2015-015 with respect to Web-based delivery of the Regulatory
Element of the S101 General Program, S106 Continuing Education Program
for Investment Company and Variable Contracts Representatives, the S201
Continuing Education Program for Registered Principals and Supervisors,
and the S901 Continuing Education Program for Operations Professionals.
Consistent with SR-CBOE-2015-084, the Exchange also filed SR-CBOE-2015-
093 to amend the Fees Schedule to provide that the fee for Web-based
delivery of the Regulatory Elements of the S101, S106, S201, and S901
Continuing Education Programs would be $55 as opposed to test center
delivery, which would continue to be $100 per session until

test center delivery of the Regulatory Element was phased out and the
programs were no longer offered at testing centers.\7\ In its filing,
the Exchange stated that upon cessation of the availability of test-
center delivery of the Regulatory Element, the Exchange would submit
another fee filing to remove references to test center fees from the
Fees Schedule.\8\ Accordingly, the Exchange now proposes to amend the
Fees Schedule to remove the now-obsolete $100 fee for test center
delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Exchange's continuing
education requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available at http://www.cboe.com/publish/RuleFilingsSEC/SR-CBOE-2015-084.pdf.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76352 (November 4,
2015), 80 FR 69760 (November 10, 2015) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees
Schedule) (SR-CBOE-2015-093).
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Act. Primarily, the Exchange believes that the elimination of
obsolete rules helps to eliminate confusion and makes the Exchange's
rules more clear and transparent, which is in the interests of both
market participants and the general public. The Exchange is
continuously updating the Rules to provide additional accuracy, detail,
clarity, and transparency regarding its operations, trading systems,
and fees. The Exchange believes that the adoption of detailed, clear,
and transparent rules reduces burdens on competition and promotes just
and equitable principles of trade. Furthermore, in general, the
Exchange believes that promoting the Web-based delivery method for
continuing education serves the best interests of market participant's
and the general public by lower the costs of participation in the
markets. The reduced cost of Web-based delivery of the Regulatory
Element of the S106, S201, and S901 Continuing Education Programs
lowers barriers to entry and removes impediments to a free and open
market and national market system by making it easier and less costly
for Trading Permit Holders to participate in the market. The Exchange
believes that reducing the costs of continuing education promotes
regulatory compliance, which is in the best interests of investors,
consistent with the Act.

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. Rather, the proposed rule
change merely seeks to delete references to a fee that is no longer
applicable to any Trading Permit Holder under the Rules. In fact, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden
on, or otherwise promote, competition by lower costs of entry to the
markets and making it easier for market participants to satisfy the
Regulatory Element of the Exchange's continuing education requirement.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
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 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-CBOE-2016-061 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-CBOE-2016-061. 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-CBOE-

016-061 and should be submitted on or before September 21, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20965 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 185 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57549-57553]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM15-8-000]

Relay Performance During Stable Power Swings Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to approve
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 (Relay Performance During Stable Power
Swings), submitted by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation. The proposed Reliability Standard is designed to ensure
that applicable entities use protective relay systems that can
differentiate between faults and stable power swings. In addition, the
Commission requests comment regarding the potential burden of modifying
the applicability of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 to include
relays with a time delay of 15 cycles or greater in instances where
either (1) an element has been identified by a Planning Coordinator as
potentially susceptible to power swings or (2) an entity becomes aware
of a bulk electric system element that tripped in response to a stable
or unstable power swing due to the operation of its protective
relay(s), even if the element was not previously identified by the
planning coordinator.

DATES: Comments are due November 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Hubona (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 (Relay
Performance During Stable Power Swings), submitted by the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-
approved Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). The proposed
Reliability Standard applies to planning coordinators, as well as
generator owners and transmission owners that apply certain load-
responsive protective relays in specific, identified circumstances, and
is designed to ensure the use of protective relay systems that can
differentiate between faults and stable power swings. In addition, the
Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed implementation plan, and
the assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Consistent with directives issued in Order No. 733,\2\ the
Commission proposes to find that the proposed Reliability Standard
addresses undesirable relay operation due to power swings,\3\ and
provides an equally effective and efficient alternative to the Order
No. 733 directive requiring the use of protective relay systems that
can differentiate between faults and stable power swings and, when
necessary, retirement of protective relay systems that cannot meet this
requirement.\4\ Further, as discussed below, the Commission seeks
comment regarding the potential burden of modifying the applicability
of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 to include relays with a
time delay of 15 cycles or greater in instances where either (1) an
element has been identified by a Planning Coordinator as potentially
susceptible to power swings or (2) an entity becomes aware of a bulk
electric system element that tripped in response to a stable or

unstable power swing due to the operation of its protective relay(s),
even if the element was not previously identified by the planning
coordinator. Depending on the response, the Commission may direct that
NERC develop modifications to the proposed Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Transmission Relay Loadability Reliability Standard, Order
No. 733, 130 FERC ] 61,221 (2010), order on reh'g and clarification,
Order No. 733-A, 134 FERC ] 61,127, order on reh'g and
clarification, Order No. 733-B, 136 FERC ] 61,185 (2011).
    \3\ Order No. 733, 130 FERC ] 61,221 at P 153.
    \4\ Id. P 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards and Order No. 733 Directives

    3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval.\5\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA,
the Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO,\6\
and subsequently certified NERC.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 16 U.S.C. 824(d) and (e).
    \6\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On March 18, 2010, in Order No. 733, the Commission approved
Reliability Standard PRC-023-1 (Transmission Relay Loadability) and
directed NERC to develop a new Reliability Standard that requires the
use of protective relay systems that can differentiate between faults
and stable power swings and, when necessary, retirement of protective
relay systems that cannot meet this requirement.\8\ In Order No. 733,
the Commission cited the findings of both NERC and the U.S.-Canada
Power System Outage Task Force on the causes of the 2003 Northeast
Blackout, explaining that the cascade during this event was accelerated
by zone 2 and zone 3 relays that continued to operate because these
devices could not distinguish between a dynamic, but stable, power
swing and an actual fault.\9\ The Commission recognized that addressing
stable power swings is a complex issue which impacted the 2003
Blackout, and yet there was no Reliability Standard that addresses the
issue; therefore, the Commission directed NERC to develop a Reliability
Standard to address undesirable relay operation due to stable power
swings.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Order No. 733, 130 FERC ] 61,221 at P 150.
    \9\ Id. PP 3-4, 130 (citing U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task
Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, at 80 (2004); and
August 14, 2003 Blackout: NERC Actions to Prevent and Mitigate the
Impacts of Future Cascading Blackouts, at 13 (2004)).
    \10\ Id. P 153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On February 17, 2011, in Order No. 733-A, the Commission denied
rehearing of Order No. 733 and clarified that ``[w]e continue to
believe that not addressing stable power swings constitutes a gap in
the current Reliability Standards and must be addressed.'' \11\
Therefore, the Commission affirmed the directive that NERC develop a
Reliability Standard addressing stable power swings.\12\ The Commission
also clarified that it did not require a Reliability Standard
containing an absolute obligation to prevent protection relays from
operating unnecessarily during stable power swings or an across-the-
board elimination of all zone 3 relays, but only the development of a
standard that addresses protection systems that are vulnerable to
stable power swings (resulting from Category B and Category C
contingencies from the NERC Planning Standards in place at that time)
that will result in inappropriate tripping.\13\ In Order No. 733-B, the
Commission denied further clarification regarding the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 733-A, 134 FERC ] 61,127 at P 104.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id. P 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC Petition and Proposed Standard PRC-026-1

    6. On December 31, 2014, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval
of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1, as well as the associated
implementation plan, and violation risk factors and violation severity
levels.\14\ NERC avers that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1
satisfies the Order No. 733 directive to develop a new standard that
requires the use of protective relay systems that can differentiate
between faults and stable power swings. According to NERC, the proposed
Reliability Standard sets forth requirements that prevent the
unnecessary tripping of bulk electric system elements in response to
stable power swings.\15\ NERC further explains that the identification
of bulk electric system elements with protection systems at-risk of
operating as a result of a stable or unstable power swing and
subsequent review by the applicable generator owner or transmission
owner ``provides assurance that relays will continue to be secure for
stable power swings if any changes in system impedance occur.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 is available on the
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM15-
8-000 and on the NERC Web site, www.nerc.com.
    \15\ See NERC Petition at 4.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. According to NERC, the proposed Reliability Standard is
``directly responsive'' to the Order No. 733 directive that NERC
develop a standard addressing undesirable relay operation due to stable
power swings.\17\ NERC explains, however, that the proposed Reliability
Standard ``includes an alternative to the Commission's approach to
require `the use of protective relay systems that can differentiate
between faults and stable power swings and, when necessary, phases out
protective relay systems that cannot meet this requirement.' '' \18\
NERC notes that in Order No. 733-A, the Commission clarified that it
had not intended ``to prohibit NERC from exercising its technical
expertise to develop a solution to an identified reliability concern
that is equally effective and efficient as the one proposed in Order
No. 733.'' \19\ In support of its alternative solution, NERC states
that ``it is generally preferable to emphasize dependability over
security when it is not possible to ensure both for all possible system
conditions'' and avers that ``[p]rohibiting use of certain types of
relays, such as those protective relay systems that cannot
differentiate between faults and stable power swings, may have
unintended negative outcomes for Bulk-Power System reliability.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 23 (citing Order No. 733, 130 FERC ] 61,221 at P
153).
    \18\ Id. (quoting Order No. 733, 130 FERC ] 61,221 at P 162).
    \19\ Id. at 11 (citing Order No. 733-A, 134 FERC ] 61,127 at P
11).
    \20\ Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 has four requirements
and two attachments. NERC explains that Attachment A ``provides clarity
on which load-responsive protective relay functions are applicable''
under the standard.\21\ Specifically, Attachment A provides that
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 applies to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 31.

any protective functions which could trip instantaneously or with a
time delay of less than 15 cycles on load current (i.e., ``load-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
responsive'') . . . .

    According to NERC, the 15 cycle time delay ``is representative of
an expected power swing having a slow slip rate of 0.67 Hertz (Hz) and
is the average time that a stable power swing with that slip rate would
enter the relays' characteristic, reverse direction, and then exit the
characteristic before the time delay expired.'' \22\ NERC states that

the proposed standard does not apply to ``functions that are either
immune to power swings, block power swings, or prevent non-immune
protection function operation due to supervision of the function.''
\23\ Attachment B contains the criteria for the evaluation of load-
responsive protective relays that are within the scope of proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1.\24\ According to NERC, Attachment B
``will reduce the need for simulation by comparing the load-responsive
protective relay to specific criteria'' set forth in Attachment B.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 30.
    \23\ Id. at 31.
    \24\ See id. at 35-38.
    \25\ Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 (Application
Guidelines) at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. According to NERC, Requirement R1 of the proposed Reliability
Standard requires the planning coordinator to identify bulk electric
system elements that meet one or more of four criteria and subsequently
notify, at least once each calendar year, the respective generator
owners and transmission owners of the identified at-risk elements.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. NERC states that, upon such notification, Requirement R2
obligates the generator owners and transmission owners to determine
whether the relays applied to the identified bulk electric system
elements meet the two criteria outlined in Attachment B to proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1. NERC notes that Requirement R2 requires
a generator owner or transmission owner to conduct the same analysis
where the entity becomes aware of a bulk electric system element that
tripped in response to a stable or unstable power swing due to the
operations of its protective relay(s), even if the element was not
previously identified by the planning coordinator.\27\ NERC concludes
that, based on the ``expected infrequency of Elements tripping in
response to a stable power swing,'' the evaluation of elements
identified under Requirement R1 combined with the evaluation of
elements identified following a known power swing trip ``meet[s] the
reliability purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard and directive
in an efficient manner without significant burden to applicable
entities.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NERC Petition at 38. NERC explains that the phrase
``becoming aware'' is used in Requirement R2 to ``not overburden
entities by requiring a determination of whether a power swing was
present for every Element trip'' due to relay operation. Id.
    \28\ Id. at 38-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NERC explains that Requirement R3 requires an applicable
generator owner or transmission owner to develop a corrective action
plan for any protective system that does not meet the Attachment B
criteria. Under the corrective action plan, a generator owner or
transmission owner is required to modify the relevant protection system
to meet the Attachment B criteria. Requirement R4 obligates a generator
owner or transmission owner to implement a corrective action plan
developed under Requirement R3 and to update the plan when either the
content of the plan or associated timetables change until the plan has
been fully executed.
    12. NERC proposes an implementation plan for PRC-026-1 under which
Requirement R1 is to become effective 12 months after Commission
approval, and Requirements R2, R3, and R4 become effective 36 months
after Commission approval.

II. Discussion

    13. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we propose to approve
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We also
propose to approve NERC's proposed implementation plan, and the
proposed violation risk factors and violation severity levels.
Generally, the proposed Reliability Standard appears to adequately
address the Commission's directive from Order No. 733 by helping to
prevent the unnecessary tripping of bulk electric system elements in
response to stable power swings. We propose to accept NERC's approach
as an equally effective and efficient method to achieve the reliability
goal underlying the Commission's Order No. 733 directive.
    14. However, we are concerned that NERC's proposed exclusion of
load responsive relays with a time delay of 15 cycles or greater as
proposed in Attachment A could result in a gap in reliability. As
mentioned above, pursuant to Attachment A, the Reliability Standard
applies to ``any protective functions which could trip instantaneously
or with a time delay of less than 15 cycles on load current (i.e.,
``load-responsive''). . . .'' NERC provides technical rationale for the
less than 15 cycle threshold, explaining that load-responsive relays
set to trip instantaneously or with a ``slight time delay'' are most
susceptible to power swings.\29\ Nevertheless, while NERC states that
its proposal meets the Commission's directive in an efficient manner
without significant burden to applicable entities, NERC has not
provided any information on the burden of including relays with a time
delay of 15 cycles or greater under proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
026-1. We believe that the lack of this information is significant in
light of the fact that an entity would not be required under the
proposed Reliability Standard to investigate an element identified by a
Planning Coordinator as potentially susceptible to power swings or
investigate an element following a known power swing trip if the
relay(s) involved have a time delay of 15 cycles or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See NERC Petition at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Therefore, we seek comment on the potential burden of modifying
the applicability of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 to include
relays with a time delay of 15 cycles or greater in instances where
either (1) an element has been identified by a Planning Coordinator as
potentially susceptible to power swings or (2) an entity becomes aware
of a bulk electric system element that tripped in response to a stable
or unstable power swing due to the operation of its protective
relay(s), even if the element was not previously identified by the
planning coordinator. Depending on the response, the Commission may
direct that NERC develop modifications to the proposed Reliability
Standard.

III. Information Collection Statement

    16. The collection of information contained in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\30\ OMB's regulations require approval of
certain informational collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \31\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
    18. We solicit comments on the need for this information, whether
the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden
estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated
information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any
revised

burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by
sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.
    Public Reporting Burden: The Commission proposes to approve
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1
will impose new requirements for the notification of particular bulk
electric system elements from planning coordinator to generator owners
and transmissions owners based on given criteria. Generator owners and
transmissions owner will evaluate those bulk electric system elements
and load-responsive protective relay(s) according to Attachment B
criteria and, if a load-responsive protective relay does not meet the
Attachment B criteria, the generator owner/transmission owner must
develop a corrective action plan. Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC Compliance Registry as of
June 26, 2015. According to the NERC Compliance Registry, NERC has
registered 318 transmission owners, 884 generator owners, and 68
planning coordinators. However, under NERC's compliance registration
program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these
numbers incorporate some double counting. The total number of unique
entities that may be identified as a notification provider (e.g.
applicable entity) in accordance with proposed Reliability Standard
PRC-026-1 will be approximately 1,074 entities registered in the United
States as a transmission owner and/or generator owner. The total number
of unique entities that may be identified as evidence retention
entities (e.g. applicable entity) in accordance with proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 will be approximately 1,092 entities
registered in the United States as a transmission owner, generator
owner and/or planning coordinator. The Commission estimates the annual
reporting burden and cost as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula:
    Average Burden Hours per Response * $60.66 per Hour = Average
Cost per Response. The hourly average of $60.66 assumes equal time
is spent by the manager, electrical engineer, and information and
record clerk. The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is:
$37.50 for information and record clerks (occupation code 43-4199),
$78.04 for a manager (occupation code 11-0000), and $66.45 for an
electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071). (The figures are
taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2014 figures at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm).
    \33\ The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is $37.50.
The BLS wage category code is 34-4199. This figure is also taken
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2014 figures at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.

                                                                       RM15-8-000
                                            [Mandatory reliability standards: reliability standard PRC-026-1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                                             Number of     Annual number   Total number   Average burden  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents    of responses    of responses     & cost per     total annual   respondent ($)
                                                                          per respondent                     response          cost
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notifications to GO/TO per Requirement R1...............           1,074               1           1,074               8           8,592         $845.28
                                                                                \32\ $485.28        $521,191
Evidence Retention GO/TO/PC.............................           1,092               1           1,092              12          13,104         $450.00
                                                                                \33\ $450.00        $491,400
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............           2,166  ..............          21,696  ..............
                                                                                $1,012,591
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-725G3, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability
Standard PRC-026-1.
    Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
    OMB Control No: To Be Determined.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: One time and on-going.
    Necessity of the Information: The proposed Reliability Standard
PRC-026-1, if adopted, would implement 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 proposal would address undesirable
relay operation due to power swings.
    19. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to the proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 and made a
determination that the proposed requirements of this standard are
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements
conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission
has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information requirements.
    20. 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_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    21. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in
this NOPR 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_ADDRESS>Please reference
the docket number of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No.
RM15-8-000) in your submission.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    22. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \34\ generally
requires a description and analysis of this NOPR that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 sets forth requirements that
prevent the unnecessary tripping of bulk

electric system elements in response to stable power swings. As shown
in the information collection section, an estimated 1,092 entities are
expected to evaluate bulk electric system elements and load-responsive
protective relay(s) according to Attachment B criteria of proposed PRC-
026-1. Comparison of the applicable entities with the Commission's
small business data indicates that approximately 661 are small entities
\35\ or 60.53 percent of the respondents affected by proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \35\ The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for
what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under
one of several different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates,
the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR,
we apply a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each
entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control
(NAICS code 221121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. As discussed above, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1
will serve to enhance reliability by imposing mandatory requirements
governing generator relay loadability, thereby reducing the likelihood
of premature or unnecessary tripping of generators during system
disturbances. The Commission estimates that each of the small entities
to whom the proposed Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 applies will incur
paperwork and record retention costs of $935.28 per entity (annual
ongoing).
    24. The Commission does not consider the estimated costs per small
entity to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-026-1 will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission seeks
comment on this certification.

V. Environmental Analysis

    25. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\36\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\37\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \37\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Procedures

    26. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due November 23, 2015. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM15-8-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and address.
    27. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    28. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    29. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    30. 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 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    31. 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 of this document, excluding the last three digits, in
the docket number field.
    32. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: September 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24279 Filed 9-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P