[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45447-45451]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM12-19-000; Order No. 782]

Revisions to Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, pursuant to section 215 of the Federal
Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
approves Modeling, Data, and Analysis (MOD) Reliability Standard MOD-
028-2, submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization. The Commission finds that the
proposed Reliability Standard represents an improvement over the
currently-effective standard, MOD-028-1 because the proposed
Reliability Standard clarifies the timing and frequency of Total
Transfer Capability calculations needed for Available Transfer
Capability calculations. The Commission also approves NERC's proposed
implementation plan and retirement of the currently-effective standard.

DATES: This rule is effective September 27, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel Bryant (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Christopher Young (Technical Information), Office of Energy of Energy
Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

144 FERC ] 61,027

United States Of America

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark.

Final Rule

    Issued July 18, 2013.

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves Modeling, Data, and Analysis (MOD) Reliability
Standard MOD-028-2 submitted to the Commission by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). NERC submitted one
modification to the currently-effective Reliability Standard MOD-028-1,
pertaining to the information a transmission service provider \2\ must
include when calculating Total Transfer Capability (TTC) using the area
interchange methodology for the on-peak and off-peak intra-day and next
day time periods. The Commission also approves NERC's proposed
implementation plan and retirement of the currently-effective
Reliability Standard MOD-028-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
    \2\ NERC defines ``transmission service provider'' as ``[t]he
entity that administers the transmission tariff and provides
Transmission Service to Transmission Customers under applicable
transmission service agreements.'' NERC, Glossary of Terms Used in
NERC Reliability Standards 64 (2011), http://www.nerc.com/files/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf. We also use the term ``transmission
operator'' in this final rule, which is defined by NERC as ``[t]he
entity responsible for the reliability of its ``local'' transmission
system, and that operates or directs the operations of the
transmission facilities.'' Id. These terms indicate distinct NERC
functional entities, to which different requirements within the same
Reliability Standard may apply. Accordingly, in the context of
describing the requirement of a Reliability Standard, we necessarily
use either or both terms where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may
approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or
modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.\3\ Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.\4\ Pursuant to section
215 of the FPA, the Commission established a process to select and
certify an ERO,\5\ and subsequently certified NERC.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. 824o(d)(2).
    \4\ Id. 824o(e)(3).
    \5\ 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).
    \6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In March 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, evaluating
107 Reliability Standards, including 23 MOD standards pertaining to
methodologies for calculating Available Transfer Capability (ATC) and
Available Flowgate Capability (AFC).\7\ The Commission approved one out
of the 23 MOD standards unconditionally, approved nine with direction
for modification and left the remaining 13 pending with direction for
modification.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P 1046, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007). See also
Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission
Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241, order on
reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 (2007), order
on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g,
Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009) (directing public
utilities to develop Reliability Standards and business practices to
improve the consistency and transparency of ATC calculations).
    \8\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On November 24, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 729,\9\
which approved Available Transmission System Capability Reliability
Standard MOD-001-1 as part of a set of Reliability Standards that
pertain to methodologies for the consistent and transparent calculation
of ATC and AFC. These Reliability Standards were designed to ensure,
among other things, that transmission service providers maintain
awareness of available system capability and future flows on their own
systems, as well as those of their neighbors, and to reduce
transmission service provider discretion and enhance transparency in
the calculation of ATC.\10\ Requirement R1 of MOD-001-1 required a
transmission operator to select one of three methodologies for
calculation of ATC or AFC for each available ATC path for each time
frame (hourly, daily or monthly). NERC developed these three
methodologies as detailed in Reliability Standards MOD-028-1 (the area
interchange methodology), MOD-029-1a (the rated system path
methodology), and MOD-030-2 (the flowgate methodology).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Calculation of
Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit Margins,
Transmission Reliability Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and
Existing Transmission Commitments and Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk Power System, Order No. 729, 129 FERC ]
61,155 (2009), order on clarification, Order No. 729-A, 131 FERC ]
61,109, order on reh'g and reconsideration, Order No. 729-B, 132
FERC ] 61,027 (2010).
    \10\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at PP 87-89.
    \11\ Id. P 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The MOD Reliability Standards require certain users, owners, and
operators of the bulk power system to develop consistent and
transparent methodologies for the calculation of ATC or AFC.\12\ Three
currently-effective Reliability Standards--MOD-028-1, MOD-029-1a, and
MOD-030-2--address three different methodologies for calculating ATC or
AFC.\13\ MOD-028-1, which describes the area interchange methodology
for determining ATC, only applies to those transmission operators and
transmission service providers that elect to implement this particular
methodology as part of their reliability compliance with Reliability
Standard MOD-001-1. MOD-001-1 requires transmission service providers
to ``[adhere] to a specific documented and transparent methodology''
and ``to select one of three methodologies for calculating [ATC] or
[AFC] for each available transfer capability path for each time frame
(hourly, daily or monthly) for the facilities in its area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. P 1.
    \13\ Id. P 51.
    \14\ Id. P 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Requirement R3.1 of MOD-028-1 details the information a
transmission operator must include in its TTC determination under the
area interchange methodology for the on-peak and off-peak intra-day and
next day time periods, as well as future days two through 31 and for
months two through 13.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. P 57 (stating that this information includes: expected
generation and transmission outages, additions, and retirements;
load forecasts; and unit commitment and dispatch order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC Petition

    7. On August 24, 2012, NERC submitted a Petition for Approval of
Proposed Reliability Standard (Petition), seeking Commission approval
of a proposed Reliability Standard, MOD-028-2, Area Interchange
Methodology, Requirement R3.1, which would revise the currently
effective ``Version 1'' standard--MOD-028-1.
    8. NERC stated that Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) requested
that NERC interpret MOD-028-1, Requirement R3.1. Specifically, FPL
requested that NERC clarify whether Requirement R3.1, which instructs
transmission operators to include data

``[f]or on peak and off peak intra-day and next day TTCs,'' actually
requires transmission operators to provide separate TTC numbers for
different portions of the current day. NERC explained that, upon
reviewing FPL's request for interpretation, the NERC Standards
Committee determined that providing this clarification might require a
modification to the Standard.\16\ In its Petition, NERC asserted that
it intended the language of MOD-028-1 to specify that, for TTC used in
current-day and next-day ATC calculations, the load forecast used
should be consistent with the period being calculated. Specifically,
NERC stated:

    \16\ Petition, Exhibit E (Record of Development of Proposed
Reliability Standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requirement R3 of the MOD-028-1 standard is proposed to be
modified to clarify language regarding load forecasting, to indicate
that for days two through 31, a daily load forecast is required
(identical to the current standard); for months two through 13, a
monthly load forecast is required (identical to the current
standard); and for current-day and next-day, entities may use either
a daily or hourly load forecast (the language being clarified). The
new language clarifies and is consistent with the intent of the
original requirement language, and does not materially change the
standard.\17\

    \17\ Petition at 7 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. NERC thus proposed Reliability Standard MOD-028-2, which revises
MOD-028-1 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29JY13.010

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    10. On March 21, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standard MOD-028-2
as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.\18\ The Commission proposed to approve Reliability
Standard MOD-028-2 after determining that it clarified requirement R3.1
of Reliability Standard MOD-028-1 and did not present reliability
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Revisions to Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability
Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 19,152 (Mar. 29,
2013), 142 FERC ] 61,210 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. While proposing to approve Reliability Standard MOD-028-2, the
NOPR also identified possible market implications of NERC's proposed
modification to requirement R3.1. The NOPR stated that, although NERC's
statutory functions are properly focused on the reliability of the
Bulk-Power System, the Commission has determined that the ERO should
also attempt to develop Reliability Standards that have no undue
negative effect on competition.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. P 11 (citing Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at PP
109, 135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The NOPR stated that NERC's proposed revision to requirement
R3.1.2 allows a transmission operator flexibility to choose either a
daily or hourly load forecast when forecasting current-day and next-day
TTC. The NOPR sought comments regarding whether a transmission operator
could potentially use a load forecast assumption that is not applicable
to the period being calculated. As an example, the NOPR stated that a
transmission operator using daily on-peak load forecasts in determining
off-peak TTC for the current day could, either purposefully or
inadvertently, suppress off-peak ATC used by generators that make off-
peak sales, or other customers who purchase hourly service.
    13. Comments in support of the NOPR were filed by NERC and Southern

Company Services, Inc., acting as agent for Alabama Power Company,
Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power
Company (Southern Company Services).

II. Discussion

    14. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we approve
Reliability Standard MOD-028-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The
Commission also approves NERC's proposed implementation plan, i.e.,
that the standard shall become effective on the first day of the first
calendar quarter after Commission approval, and retirement of the
currently-effective Reliability Standard MOD-028-1. NERC's clarifying
revision to Requirement R3.1.2 of MOD-028-2 allows a transmission
operator the flexibility to choose either a daily or hourly load
forecast when forecasting current-day and next-day TTC. This revision
does not present reliability concerns.
    15. In the NOPR, the Commission asked for comment on a potential
market-related concern regarding whether a transmission operator using
daily on-peak load forecasts in determining off-peak TTC for the
current day could, either purposefully or inadvertently, suppress off-
peak ATC used by generators that make off-peak sales, or other
customers who purchase hourly service. In response to the NOPR, two
entities submitted comments, both supporting Commission approval of
MOD-028-2. Southern Company Services comments that the flexibility in
Requirement R3.1 does not give rise to the potential for undue
discrimination in ATC calculations. NERC states that the proposed
modification to Reliability Standard MOD-028-2 clarifies the existing
language and provides flexibility for operators to select a methodology
that best fits their needs. NERC comments that it ``expect[s] that
entities will implement proposed Reliability Standard MOD-028-2
consistent with their existing legal obligations, i.e., pursuant to
open access transmission tariffs, etc.'' \20\ NERC adds that, ``while
it might be possible for an entity to use a load forecast assumption
that is not applicable to the period being calculated, the Commission
can mitigate such risks through complaints and the Commission's market
oversight authority.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NERC Comments at 3-4.
    \21\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. We are satisfied that the modification to Requirement R3.1 does
not give rise to any immediate market-related concerns in the instant
proceeding. No entity filed comments raising the concern that a
transmission operator would use a load forecast assumption that is not
applicable to the period being calculated. However, we agree with NERC
that, consistent with Order No. 729, the risk of a transmission service
provider using parameters and assumptions to skew its ATC values can be
mitigated through complaints and market oversight authority.\22\ In
addition, as NERC also acknowledges, transmission operators must
implement the revised Reliability Standard MOD-028-2 in a manner
consistent with their existing legal obligations, including their
obligations under their open access transmission tariffs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 135.
    \23\ To the extent a market-related issue arises as a result of
future changes to Reliability Standard MOD-028, we can address it at
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Accordingly, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve
Reliability Standard MOD-028-2.

III. Information Collection Statement

    18. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\24\ The information contained here
is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2012).
    \25\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in Order
No. 729, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the current
rulemaking. This Final Rule approves one revision to a previously
approved Reliability Standard developed by NERC as the ERO. The minor
revision relates to an existing Reliability Standard and does not add
to or otherwise increase entities' current reporting burden. Thus, the
revision does not materially affect the burden estimates relating to
the currently effective version of the Reliability Standards presented
in Order No. 729. The MOD-028-1 Reliability Standard that is subject of
the approved revision was approved in Order No. 729, and the related
information collection requirements were reviewed and approved,
accordingly.\26\ The Commission submitted the revised Reliability
Standard to OMB as a request for ``no material'' or ``nonsubstantive''
change \27\ at the NOPR stage. OMB approved the nonsubstantive change,
requiring no further Commission action related to the information
collection requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at PP 307-312.
    \27\ This type of submittal means that there is no change to the
existing burden estimates and the existing expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Environmental Analysis

    20. 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.\28\ 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.\29\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \29\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    21. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \30\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a final rule and that minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small business.\31\ For electric
utilities, a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is
primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution
of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the
preceding twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt hours. The
Commission does not expect the revision adopted herein to materially
affect the cost for small entities to comply with the proposed
Reliability Standard. As discussed above, the clarifying revision
allows transmission service providers more flexibility in calculating
ATC and only de minimis costs are associated with implementation of the
revision. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the Final Rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \31\ See 13 CFR 121.201.

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

VI. Document Availability

    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    25. These regulations are effective September 27, 2013. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17813 Filed 7-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 1 NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Request to Reconsider the Amount Recommended for 2006 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Orchard Replant DOCUMENT NUMBER CUN 2003/ 056, Uso6N7 DATE August 12, 2004 TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND SPECIFIC REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN ORCHARD REPLANT REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED KEY DISEASE( S) AND WEED( S) TO GENUS AND, IF KNOWN, TO SPECIES LEVEL SPECIFIC REASONS WHY METHYL BROMIDE NEEDED California Grape and Tree Fruit League   Stone Fruit Replant problem is a disease complex comprised of interactions between various pathogens and environmental factors. Nematodes ( Primary pests): Meloidogyne ( root knot); Criconemella ( ring); Xiphinema ( dagger); Pratylenchus ( root lesion); and Tylenchulus ( citrus) Pathogens: Armellaria, Phytophthora, and various fungi, depending on orchard location and conditions that are thought to contribute to orchard replant disorder. Insect: Pollyphylla decemlineata ( tenlined June beetle) Some alternatives, such as 1,3 D, may be effective in reducing the effects of orchard replant disorder where there are no legal restriction and in light, sandy loam soils, and where there is acceptable soil moisture. In other situations, where soils are medium to heavy, or where township caps are applicable, MB is the only compound that can effectively target root remnants from previous orchard trees.

California Walnut Commission ( Central Valley and coastal valleys) Replant problem caused by interactions of pests and environment primarily Nematodes: ( in ~ 85% of orchards) Pratylenchus vulnus, Mesocriconema xenoplax, Meloidogyne spp. Township caps and unacceptable soil moisture (> 12% at over 1 meter depths in medium and heavy soils) limit 1,3 D use ( the best alternative) to approximately only 30% of orchard land.

Almond Hullers and Processors Association ( California) Replant problem is a disease complex comprising an interaction of pests ( primarily nematodes) and environmental factors. Nematodes: Meloidogyne incognita ( root knot), Pratylenchus vulnus ( root lesion), Mesocriconema xenoplax ( ring), Xiphinema americanum ( dagger) Many new almond orchards were planted between 1979 and 1982. These orchards will soon need to be replanted as the life of the orchard is reaching its maximum ( 25 30 years). Because no virgin land is available, replant problems will occur in these locations. Because of township caps and water moisture issues, the best alternative, 1,3 D is not available or effective as a replacement. Therefore, MB is considered critical for this industry. USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 2 AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 2. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED BY THE U. S. IN 2005 AND 2006. 2005 ( KG) 2006 ( KG) DESCRIPTION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YEARS 706,176 827,994 New data was used on total combined impacts. CA anticipates higher use for the next few years due to cyclical replacement of orchard crops. Reduction in use rate imposed.

FIGURE 1. U. S. TOTAL, REQUESTED, AND NOMINATED HECTARES OF ORCHARD REPLANT 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Orchard Replant Total Requested by applicants Nominated by U. S.

Footnote: Total hectares, based on United States Department of Agriculture Statistics, are U. S. hectares in production for this sector in 2002. The requested hectares are sum total of all areas in the CUE applications. The nominated hectares reflect reductions of the requested hectares to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used. Total kilograms of methyl bromide nominated by the United States government for this sector are based on these nominated hectares. See the accompanying spreadsheet 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index or " BUNI" ( Filename: USA 2006 BUNI   Refined Nomination Package. xls) for more detailed information on how the nominated amount was determined.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic impacts were assessed using four economic parameters: 1. loss per hectare, 2. loss per kilogram of methyl bromide, 3. loss as a percentage of gross revenue, and 4. loss as a percentage of net revenue. This assessment compares methyl bromide to the best available alternative to determine the economic feasibility of using that alternative. A range of alternatives were examined to determine the best available alternative scenario taking into account yield loss estimates and cost increase estimates. The result of the economic impact analysis is presented in the BUNI analysis. In this sector, no alternatives were found to be both technically and economically feasible for the particular circumstances nominated for the CUE. USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 3 REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ORCHARD REPLANT SITUATION Purpose. The United States requests that MBTOC reconsider the amount of methyl bromide ( MB) it recommended for the Orchard Replant sector for 2006. We believe that there are circumstances that justify an allocation of the nominated amount ( 839.755 metric tonnes) of MB. Indeed, MBTOC itself notes that the alternatives that may be available in this area have not been well proven. Although we are committed to further research in this area ( please see " Research   Alternative Strategies" section below), we believe that nominating countries, and their respective farmers, should not have to bear the substantial risk of orchard failure until suggested alternatives have been more fully tested and proven to be effective.

Rationale. Because of the cyclic and long term nature of the replant crops, we believe that the use of MB by the Orchard Replant sector does not adhere to the general model for annual, or even some perennial crops. Almond orchards, for example, have a 20 year, or longer, production cycle and replacement of orchards planted in the late 1970s and early 1980s ( when a large number of almond orchards were established) will be necessary within the next five or six years. We believe that the baseline for MB use during the last five years is not representative of the critical needs of this sector since MB is used only once in the life of an orchard and orchards are productive for 20 to 40 years. Over 25,000 hectares of orchards will have to be replaced each year to maintain current crop bearing hectares, which is comparable to the number of hectares planted prior to 2000 in California ( Tables 3 and 4). Therefore, comparative use of MB should be for those orchards planted years ago. Because there currently does not appear to be a " dropin replacement for MB for this sector, it is likely that a combination of chemical and nonchemical strategies will have to be used to successfully manage orchard replant disorder ( McKenry, 1999). Until such time as the optimum replacements have been proven, however, we believe there is a critical need for MB to help in the successful establishment of orchard and vineyard plants.

This sector supports ongoing research to assess the efficacy of various disease management strategies, but now they must use a proven management tool for new orchards that will be productive for the next several decades. We believe that critical soil and regulatory impacts on orchards are actually at the higher end of the calculated impact range of affected orchards, such that a greater amount of MB will be required to prevent a significant economic loss. MBTOC is correct that the "  main constraint to the adoption of alternatives is the inability to identify definitively what is causing replant disease and implement appropriate response" and in the near future current research should help elucidate the complex nature of orchard replant disorder. MBTOC is also correct that "  the industry is aware of technically feasible and available alternatives and use of VIF for emission reduction". Unfortunately for orchard producers, this disorder manifests itself differentially, depending on the orchard location, type of crop, type of soil, and even type of crop that was previously planted in the replant site ( McKenry, 1999; Messenger and Braun, 2000). Consequently, the short term ability of orchard farmers to produce acceptable yields will be reduced without MB, a proven effective management tool, in situations where alternatives have not been effective or where they are not allowed.

Background. The U. S. Nomination within the Orchard Replant sector was for areas where alternatives were not suitable, either because of legal restrictions or physical features such as USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 4 unacceptable soil moisture. For most sites of orchard replant with stone fruit, grapes, walnuts, and almonds in California, MB is a critical tool for establishing healthy, long lived orchards. Only some of the orchard sites in California are currently able to effectively use alternative measures to manage orchard replant disorder, the disease complex that is associated with various pathogens ( primarily nematodes, some fungi, and possibly at least one insect species) and environmental factors such as soils, moisture, climate, and nutrition ( Browne et al., 2002; McKenry, 1999).

Many aspects of the etiology of this disease complex are currently not known. Orchard replant " problem" or " disorder" presents a difficult challenge to growers when replanting orchards and vineyards, considering the long term investment ( typically fruit orchards and vineyards can produce for 20 25 years, walnut orchards can produce for 40 years, and almond orchards produce on average 25 30 years) that is necessary for fruit and nut orchard production. Because of the perennial nature of orchards, fumigation of orchards occurs only once during the bearing life of the trees, and so the most efficient system to produce the healthiest trees is necessary to avoid early tree removal, added costs, and lost revenue due to necessity of planting and then replanting orchards if replant disorder is not initially addressed.

According to an in depth report on orchard replant ( McKenry, 1999), in 1999, at least 85% of California walnut hectares are infested with one or more problem nematodes ( Pratylenchus vulnus, Criconemella xenoplax, or Meloidogyne spp.). No rootstocks are currently available that have sufficient resistance to control these pests. About 60% of vineyards are infested with problem nematodes, although tolerant rootstocks can help ameliorate the replant problem for some nematodes. However, vineyards are also susceptible to Phylloxera and Armillaria root rots. At least 60% of cling peach areas are infested with Criconemella xenoplax and another 35% of stone fruit plantings are infested with P. vulnus or C. xenoplax. Around 35% of almond plantings are infested with C. xenoplax and/ or P. vulnus; 15% of almond orchards are infected with bacterial canker, and 5% are infected with oak root fungus.

Replant disorder is affected by environmental conditions or stress, such that disease management can be effective in some areas but not in others. Effective fumigation prior to replanting orchards can reduce pest populations by 99.9% in the top 1.5 meters while killing remnant roots from previous orchard trees. Even if pests can be sufficiently controlled, old plant roots must be removed or made unavailable as nutrients over a period of time to allow the establishment of healthy, actively growing trees. For the fruit and nut industries, MB is critical considering the once in an orchard life ( 20 40 years) fumigation requirement.

1,3 D Alternative. Fumigation improves the growth of trees in the beginning stages of orchard establishment   "   even ` resistant' rootstocks grow poorly their first year or two without such soil treatments" ( McKenry, 1999). An effective pre plant fumigation should kill 99.9% of nematode pests in the top 1.5 meters of orchard soils, and should kill the roots remaining from the previous orchard planting ( McKenry, 1999). If growers relied solely on post planting drip treatments it would be difficult to achieve greater than 50 75% nematode control for longer than 6 9 months   especially since no remnant roots are killed, allowing a refuge for nematode pests. Pre plant fumigation also provides a means for avoiding repeated post plant nematicide applications during the years following planting; thus reducing costs and further pesticide USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 5 applications. Thus, the importance of an effective pre plant fumigation treatment is critical to an orchard's survival as an ongoing commercial operation.

Prior to 1990, 1,3 D was considered at least as good as MB for treatment of replant problem ( McKenry, 1999). However, due to environmental and health concerns ( it is a B2 carcinogen and was found off of treatment sites) 1,3 D was banned and MB became the predominant treatment for orchard replant. With the re labeling of 1,3 D in the mid 1990s there were new restrictions on its use and application rate, including township caps in California, and reduced rates that were considered ineffective for some severe replant situations ( reduced to 325 kg/ ha from 427 kg/ ha). MB, therefore, remains the standard for the industry when establishing nearly all of California's orchards, except in the few with light soils, with appropriate moisture conditions, where lower rates of 1,3 D can be effective ( McKenry, 1999). [ Each township is allowed a maximum of approximately 41,000 kg per year, in a township of approximately 9300 ha; at 225 kg/ ha, 180 ha can be treated with 1,3 D per township.]

Many areas of California that are amenable to these crops have soil types and moisture characteristics that prevent alternatives from acting effectively to successfully manage replant disorder; some areas are also subject to township caps for 1,3 D, the best alternative. In addition, nearly all orchards, due to location, soil type, or other environmental conditions, are susceptible to the replant problem, and therefore, require MB fumigation prior to orchard replant. Areas with soils that contain less than 12% moisture at approximately 1.5 meters and can be sufficiently moistened in the top 30 cm, and are not restricted in their use of 1,3 D, may find 1,3 D an effective alternative to MB. In other situations that do not have these soil and moisture characteristics, MB is the only effective treatment.

Generally, it will not be possible to expand the use of the best alternative, 1,3 D to a greater percent of orchard replant situations because of physical and legal restrictions. At current label rates, 1,3 D can be effective in light soils, but not medium to heavy soils where moisture content below 1 1.5 meters and on the surface reduces the number of effective sites. In addition, only if township cap limitations were reduced would there be a likelihood that 1,3 D could supplant the critical need for MB in many orchards. This is not a realistic scenario given environmental, regulatory, and health concerns for 1,3 D ( as well as metam sodium) in California. Furthermore, prior to label cancellation in 1990, 1,3 D was used at a higher rate ( 427 kg/ ha) than the current maximum label rate ( 375 kg/ ha), established after its reintroduction for perennials in 1996 ( McKenry, 1999). The higher rate was considered significantly more effective than the current rate ( where 1,3 D is allowed under township cap restrictions). Rates are unlikely to be increased due to the probable carcinogenic nature of 1,3 D ( B2 carcinogen). Aside from township caps, efficacy of 1,3 D is highly dependent on soil type, requiring light soils to be most effective at the current label rates.

Recent Decrease in Hectares Planted and Treated. The orchard hectares planted and treated has decreased in recent years ( Table 3). However, in order to maintain the bearing hectares, the hectares planted, and subsequently treated, will have to increase, which is why the U. S. requested more MB than was used since 2000. USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 6 TABLE 3. HECTARES PLANTED IN CALIFORNIA.

Hectares Planted 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Almond 14,055 17,328 11,977 8,011 5,900 3,992 Walnut 3,035 2,458 3,417 2,627 1,175 1,442 Grapes 3,049 2,964 2,028 2,394 1,635 848 Stone Fruits* 3,397 3,902 2,780 3,281 2,649 2,330 Orchard Hectares Planted 23,536 26,652 20,201 16,312 11,359 8,612 Orchard Hectares Treated with MeBr 7,610 4,993 6,168 3,514 3,020 1,737 Percent Hectares Treated 32% 19% 31% 22% 27% 20%

* Available data includes peaches, nectarines, plums and prunes, but not cherries. Source: California Agricultural Statistics Service and California Tree Fruit Association.

To maintain bearing orchard hectares ( Table 4), the hectares that will need to be replaced each year are equal to the bearing hectares divided by the average bearing life of the orchards. Over 25,000 hectares of orchards will have to be replaced each year in California to maintain the orchard bearing hectares, which is comparable to the number of California orchard hectares planted in the late 1990s.

TABLE 4. BEARING HECTARES, CALIFORNIA. Almonds Walnuts Grapes Stone Fruits Total Bearing Hectares 2003, California 214,575 86,235 139,271 104,453 544,534 Average Bearing Life ( years) 22 36 19 18 Average Replacement per Year ( hectares) 9,753 2,395 7,330 5,803 25,282 Projected Treated Hectares 2006 486 810 433 2,132 3,860 Average Percent to be Treated 5% 34% 6% 37% 15% Source: California Agricultural Statistics Service.

Research   Alternative Strategies. The applicants of this sector are supporting research for the development of technologies and strategies to improve the efficacy of alternatives, such as: deep injection methods, soil moisture management by improving drip technologies, use of fallow, chemical/ non chemical combinations, herbicides to kill remnant roots, use of " virgin" soils as amendments to try to reduce the severity of replant problem, resistant rootstocks when available, and irrigation regimes to improve consistency of metam sodium distribution.

Because this sector applies MB only once in the life of the orchard, use of alternatives to replace MB will have to be well considered in light of their long term impacts on fruit and nut production. McKenry ( 1999) has hypothesized that there are four distinct, but interacting, components to the replant problem. All of the components do not have to be present for the occurrence of replant problem, so the symptoms vary from location to location. Some components are time dependent and do not occur until years after orchard replant. The four components of replant problem are hypothesized: 1) rejection ( unknown factors resulting in failure of plants to thrive), 2) physical or chemical soil barriers to root development, 3) presence of known soil pathogens and pests, and 4) nutrient requirements of young trees and vines. McKenry evaluated 136 regimes that included various rates and mixtures of fumigants, herbicides, fallow periods, cover crops, genetic rootstocks, tarps, soil treatments ( e. g., marigold extract drench), fertilizers, etc. Clearly, extensive and reliable field studies on these perennial USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 7 crops require considerable time to conduct, and until replicated trials can be analyzed, we believe that MB is critical to establishing healthy orchards.

Research is currently being conducted by all applicants in this sector to find increasingly more effective ways of managing orchard replant disorder ( e. g., Browne et al., 2002; Ferris and Walker, 2002; Martin, 2003; McKenry, 1999, 2001; Schneider et al., 1999, 2000; Trout et al., 2002). From 1992 to 2002, the expenditures on research have included $ 430,000 ( California Walnut Commission), $ 250,000 ( California Grape and Tree Fruit League), and $ 86,000 ( Almond Hullers and Processors Association). While orchard replant uses MB only once in the orchard's life, the research being conducted will help integrate new methods and techniques to producing high quality fruit and nuts, as well as reduction of MB emissions. The substantial commitment to research, by all of the orchard and vineyard crop associations, continues.

Conclusion. The Orchard Replant sector has a critical need for the nominated amount of MB ( i. e., 839.755 metric tonnes). This amount takes into consideration the unique nature of this sector, which uses MB only once in the planting of new orchards and vineyards on previously planted land. Orchard replant use of MB is the only proven means of disease management for perennial, high value crops in many orchard locations in California. Because of the long term and cyclical nature of crops comprising this sector ( typically 20 to 40 years), the general rule of a five year baseline of use does not seem applicable. Numerous orchards planted in the late 1970s and early 1980s will have to be replanted. Without a proven alternative to MB to manage orchard replant disorder, replanted orchards in the next few years still have a critical need for MB. Ongoing research continues to examine combinations of chemicals and cultural methods to replace MB, but until valid conclusions are reached, growers are in critical need of MB.

REFERENCES 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI)   Refined Nomination Package. Attached to U. S. Response to Questions as an Excel Spreadsheet.

Browne, G., Trout, T. and Bulluck, R. 2002. Cultural control and etiology of replant disease of Prunus spp. University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. http:// www. sarep. ucdavis. edu/ grants/ reports/ mebr/ browne/ browne. html Ferris, H. and Walker, M. A. 2002. Development of grape rootstocks with broad and durable nematode resistance. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Final Report ( updated May, 2003). http:// www. sarep. ucdavis. edu/ Grants/ Reports/ MeBr/ Ferris/ ferris. html Martin, F. N. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41: 325 350. http:// arjournals. annualreviews. org/ doi/ pdf/ 10.1146/ annurev. phyto. 41.052002.095514 USA, Request to Reconsider Orchard Replant Recommendation Amount Page 8 McKenry, M. 2001. Performance of metam sodium drenched to six different replant sites. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2001). http:// mbao. org/

McKenry, M. V. 1999. The replant problem and its management. Contractor for California Association of Nurseryman. Prepared for California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Catalina Publishing, Fresno, California, USA. ( See CUE 03 0013, CUE 03 0014 request packages of California Grape and Tree Fruit League, and CUE 03 0029 request of California Walnut Commission.)

Messinger, B. and Braun, A. 2000 ( Sept.). Alternatives to MB for the control of soil borne diseases and pests in California. Pest Management Analysis and Planning Program. California Department of Pesticide Regulations. http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ dprdocs/ methbrom/ alt anal/ sept2000. pdf Schneider, S., Ajwa, H., Trout. T., and Sims, J. 2000. Alternatives for vineyard replant and grapevine nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2000). http:// mbao. org/

Schneider, Ajwa, H. Trout, T. and Sims, J. 1999. Grape replant disorder   an integrated management approach. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Methyl Bromide Alternatives. http:// www. ars. usda. gov/ is/ np/ mba/ oct99/ grape. htm Trout. T., Ajwa, H., Schneider, S., Gartung, J. 2002. Fumigation and fallowing effects on replant problems in California peach. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2002). http:// mbao. org/; http:// mbao. org/ 2002proc/ 058TroutT% 20mbp conf02 peach. pdf


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36770-36771]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14545]

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

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
stakeholder meeting related to the transmission planning activities of
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Midcontinent Independent System Operator;
New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; and the Southeastern
Regional Transmission Planning regions.

Transmission Owner Order No. 1000 Interregional Cost Allocation
Proposal Conference Call

June 17, 2013, 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., Local Time

    The above-referenced meeting will be held over conference call.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/committees/toa-ac.aspx.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, LLC v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket No. EL12-69, Primary Power LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER08-1281, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.

Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-102, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-104, Florida Power & Light Company
Docket No. ER13-1052, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1054, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-107, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Docket No. ER13-1221, Mississippi Power Company
Docket No. ER13-193, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-196, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
Docket No. ER13-397, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-673, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C
Docket No. ER13-703, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-80, Tampa Electric Company
Docket No. ER13-83, Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Carolina Power &
Light Company
Docket No. ER13-84, Cleco Power LLC
Docket No. ER13-86, Florida Power Corporation
Docket No. ER13-88, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-887, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-897, Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky
Utilities Company
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-908, Alabama Power Company et al.
Docket No. ER13-913, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket No. ER13-95, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    For Further Information Contact: Jonathan Fernandez, Office of
Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202)
502-6604 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14545 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 7983-7985]
[DOCID:fr22fe07-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0079; FRL-OW-8280-2]

Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria--Copper 2007
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
availability of the 2007 revised recommended aquatic life ambient
freshwater quality criteria for copper. The Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires

EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time revise, criteria for
water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. These
criteria provide EPA's recommendations to states and authorized tribes
as they establish their water quality standards as state or tribal law
or regulation. An EPA water quality criterion does not substitute for
requirements of the CWA or EPA regulations, nor is an EPA criteria
recommendation a regulation. It does not impose legally binding
requirements on the EPA, states, authorized tribes or the regulated
community. State and tribal decision makers have discretion to adopt
approaches that differ from EPA's water quality criteria
recommendations on a case-by-case basis. Today, the Agency is making a
revised recommendation about water quality criteria for copper.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the criteria document entitled, Aquatic Life
Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria--Copper 2007 Revision (EPA-822-R-
07-001) may be obtained from EPA's Water Resource Center by phone at
(202) 566-1729, or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
conventional mail to: U.S. EPA Water Resource Center, 4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You can also download
the criteria document and the fact sheet from EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/index.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Luis Cruz, Health and Ecological
Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Interested Entities

    Entities potentially interested in today's notice are those that
produce, use, or regulate copper. Categories and entities interested in
today's notice include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of interested
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/Local/Tribal Government.............  States, Tribes and
                                             Municipalities.
Industry..................................  Mining, fabricated metal
                                             products, electric
                                             equipment, leather
                                             products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities likely to be interested in this notice.
Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
interested.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA established an official public docket for the initial draft
criteria document and scientific views received under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0079. The official public docket will also consist of
the 2007 revised criteria document and scientific views received.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
, or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-
2426. To view these documents and materials, please call ahead to
schedule an appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per
day before incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page
for each page over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of
$25.00.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA's Internet listings under the Federal Register at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Background and Today's Notice of Availability

A. What Are EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria?

    An EPA recommended ambient water quality criterion is a description
of the amount of a pollutant or other measurable substance in water
that, when met, will protect aquatic life and/or human health. Water
quality criteria are based on the factors specified in section 304(a)
of the Clean Water Act, including the kind and extent of effects of the
pollutant on human health and aquatic organisms. Section 304(a) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) requires EPA to develop and publish
and, from time to time, revise, recommended ambient water quality
criteria to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge. An EPA
water criterion does not substitute for requirements of the CWA or EPA
regulations, nor is an EPA criteria recommendation a regulation. It
does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized
tribes or the regulated community. State and tribal decision makers
have discretion to adopt approaches that differ from EPA's water
quality criteria recommendations on a case-by-case basis.
    Ambient water quality criteria developed under section 304(a)
provide guidance to states and tribes in adopting water quality
criteria into their water quality standards under section 303(c) of the
CWA. Once adopted by a state or tribe, the water quality standards are
then a basis for developing regulatory controls on the discharge or
release of pollutants and other alterations of water quality. EPA's
section 304(a) criteria also provide a scientific basis for EPA to
develop any necessary federal water quality regulations under section
303(c) of the CWA.

B. What Is the Relationship Between the Water Quality Criteria and Your
State or Tribal Water Quality Standards?

    The revised recommended criteria in today's notice are based on the
factors specified in section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including
the kind and extent of effects of the pollutant on human health and
aquatic organisms. EPA's recommended criteria are used by the states
and tribes in developing their regulatory criteria under section 303(c)
of the CWA. Under the Clean Water Act, regulatory water quality
criteria must protect the designated use, independent of the economic
and technical feasibility of meeting the criteria. Economic and
technical feasibility factors are considered by states and tribes when
they adopt designated uses into their water quality standards under
section 303(c) of the Act and when states, tribes, and EPA consider
variance requests. Moreover, states and tribes may also consider
alternative scientifically defensible approaches to adopting criteria
into their water quality standards.
    Section 303(c)(1) of the CWA requires states and authorized tribes
to review and modify, if appropriate, their water quality standards at
least once every three years. Water quality standards consist of
designated uses, water quality criteria to protect those uses, a policy
for antidegradation, and general policies for application and
implementation. States and authorized tribes must adopt water quality
criteria that protect designated uses. Protective criteria, based on a
sound scientific rationale, contain appropriate factors to protect the
designated uses. Criteria may be

either narrative or numeric. States and authorized tribes have four
options when adopting water quality criteria for parameters for which
EPA has published section 304(a) criteria. They may: (1) Establish
numerical values based on recommended CWA section 304(a) criteria; (2)
Establish numerical values based on CWA section 304(a) criteria
modified to reflect site-specific conditions; (3) Establish numerical
values based on other scientifically defensible methods; or (4)
Establish narrative criteria or criteria based upon biomonitoring
methods where numerical criteria cannot be determined or to supplement
numerical criteria. See 40 CFR 131.11(b).
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21, water quality criteria that states and
authorized tribes adopted and submitted to EPA before May 30, 2000, are
in effect for CWA purposes. The criteria remain in effect unless and
until EPA promulgates federal regulations that supersede them or EPA
approves a revised state criteria. See, e.g., the National Toxics Rule,
40 CFR 131.36; Water Quality Standards for Idaho, 40 CFR 131.33. New or
revised water quality criteria that states and authorized tribes
adopted into law or regulation and submit to EPA on or after May 30,
2000, are in effect for CWA purposes only after EPA approves them.

C. What Is the History of Today's Revised Criteria?

    EPA notified the public of its intentions to revise the recommended
aquatic life criteria for copper in the Federal Register on October 29,
1999 (63 FR 58406). On December 31, 2003 EPA published a Federal
Register Notice announcing the availability of the document Notice of
Availability of Draft Aquatic Life Criteria Document for Copper and
Request for Scientific Views (68 FR 75552). The initial draft criteria
document contained recommendations for both freshwater and saltwater
criteria derivations; however, EPA has since determined that the biotic
ligand model requires further development before it is suitable for use
to evaluate saltwater data. On March 9, 2004 EPA published a Federal
Register Notice (69 FR 11012) announcing the reopening of the period to
submit scientific views in response to requests from the public.
Comments received were supportive of using the BLM for deriving
freshwater criteria for copper. Issues related to criteria derivation
process were answered, as well as corrections in matters of scientific
relevance related to the applicability of the BLM.

D. What Is Copper?

    Copper is an abundant trace element found in the earth's crust and
is a naturally occurring element that is generally present in surface
waters. Copper is a micronutrient at low concentrations and recognized
as essential to virtually all plants and animals. Historically,
elevated levels of copper have been linked to adverse effects on
aquatic organisms and concerns have prompted its inclusion as a
priority pollutant. Currently, there are 629 rivers and streams listed
as impaired for copper and 5 for contaminated sediments due to copper.

E. What Is New About the Revised Criteria?

    The aquatic life criteria document titled, ``Aquatic Life Ambient
Freshwater Quality Criteria--Copper 2007 Revision'' (EPA-822-R-07-001),
contains revised recommendations for freshwater aquatic life criteria
for copper. These revised criteria recommendations are based in part on
new data that have become available since EPA's last comprehensive
criteria updates for copper, ``Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Copper--1984'' (EPA-440/5-84-031). EPA derived the freshwater criteria
recommendations presented in this draft document based on the
principles set forth in EPA's 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Aquatic Life Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses. In addition to incorporating new data, the freshwater
criterion maximum concentration (CMC or ''acute criterion'') also
relies on a new scientific model, the biotic ligand model (BLM), in the
criteria derivation procedures. The freshwater criterion continuous
concentration (CCC or ``chronic criterion'') is based on a BLM derived
acute value divided by a final acute-chronic ratio. Where used, the
application of the BLM will replace the need for site-specific
modifications, such as Water Effect Ratio, to account for site-specific
chemistry influences on metal toxicity.

F. How Do BLM-Derived Criteria Differ From Hardness-Dependent Criteria?

    The biotic ligand model is a metal bioavailability model based on
recent information about the chemical behavior and physiological
effects of metals in aquatic environments. Earlier freshwater aquatic
life criteria for copper published by the Agency were based on
empirical relationships of toxicity to water hardness. That is, a
relationship was established linking the criteria concentrations with
water hardness. These hardness-dependent criteria, however, represented
combined effects of different water quality variables (such as pH and
alkalinity) correlated with hardness. Unlike the empirically derived
hardness-dependent criteria, the BLM explicitly accounts for individual
water quality variables and addresses variables that EPA had not
previously factored into the hardness relationship. Where the previous
freshwater aquatic life criteria were hardness-dependent, these revised
criteria are dependent on a number of water quality parameters (e.g.,
calcium, magnesium, dissolved organic carbon) described in the
document. BLM-based criteria can be more stringent than the current
hardness-based copper criteria and in certain cases the current
hardness-based copper criteria may be overly stringent for particular
water bodies.
    More information on the development and application of the biotic
ligand model is available in the criteria document as well as in The
Biotic Ligand Model: Technical Support Document for Its Application to
the Evaluation of Water Quality Criteria for Copper (EPA 822-R-03-027)
and Integrated Approach to Assessing the Bioavailability and Toxicity
of Metals in Surface Waters and Sediments (EPA-822-E-99-001).

G. What Are the New Revised Criteria for Copper?

    The available toxicity data, when evaluated using the procedures
described in the ``Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uses'' indicate that freshwater aquatic life should be protected if the
24-hour average and four-day average concentrations do not respectively
exceed the acute and chronic criteria concentrations calculated by the
Biotic Ligand Model.
    A return interval of 3 years between exceedances of the criterion
continues to be EPA's general recommendation. However, the resilience
of ecosystems and their ability to recover differ greatly. Therefore,
scientific derivation of alternative frequencies for exceeding criteria
may be appropriate.

    Dated: February 15, 2007.
Ephraim King,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
 [FR Doc. E7-3007 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 75887]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0176]

SEDASYS Computer-Assisted Personalized Sedation System; Ethicon
Endo-Surgery, Incorporated's Petition for Review of the Food and Drug
Administration's Denial of Premarket Approval; Notice of Cancellation
of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The meeting of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel
scheduled for December 14, 2011, is cancelled. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register of November 21, 2011 (76 FR 71980).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Braier, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5454,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The meeting of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee scheduled for December 14, 2011, is
cancelled. On December 14, 2011, this advisory committee was slated to
discuss the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH's)
denial of a premarket approval application (PMA) for the SEDASYS
computer-assisted personalized sedation system (SEDASYS) submitted by
Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. (EES), the sponsor for SEDASYS. This meeting
has been cancelled because EES has withdrawn its petition for review of
this denial.
    On February 26, 2010, CDRH issued a letter to EES indicating that
PMA P080009 for SEDASYS was not approvable under Sec.  814.44(f) (21
CFR 814.44(f)) because CDRH concluded that the data and information
offered in support of the PMA did not provide a reasonable assurance
that the device is safe under the conditions of use prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling, as required by
section 515(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(2)(A)).
    On March 25, 2010, EES requested review of the not approvable
letter. Submitted in the form of a petition for reconsideration under
21 CFR 10.33 (see 21 CFR 814.44(f)(2)), EES's petition stated that, in
accordance with Sec.  814.44(f), EES considered the not approvable
letter to be a denial of approval of PMA P080009 under Sec.  814.45 (21
CFR 814.45). In accordance with section 515(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, EES
requested review of this denial under section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C
Act. Subsequently, on October 26, 2010, CDRH issued an order denying
approval of the SEDASYS PMA (Denial Order), as required by Sec.
814.45(e)(3). On November 5, 2010, in accordance with section 515(g)(2)
of the FD&C Act, FDA granted EES's petition for review of the Denial
Order.
    FDA's Office of the Commissioner (OC) referred PMA P080009 and the
basis for CDRH's Denial Order to the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution
Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, an advisory committee
of experts established, in part, to receive referrals of petitions for
advisory committee review under section 515(g)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act.
(See 76 FR 15321, March 21, 2011.) In the Federal Register of November
21, 2011, FDA announced that this advisory committee was scheduled to
meet to discuss the clinical and scientific issues raised by CDRH's
Denial Order on December 14, 2011.
    By letter dated November 28, 2011, EES notified OC that EES
``withdraws its request for administrative review'' of that order
``through an independent advisory committee under Section 515(g)(2) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' Because EES has withdrawn
its petition for review of CDRH's denial of approval of the SEDASYS
PMA, OC regards the matter it initiated closed and is, accordingly,
canceling the previously mentioned meeting of the Medical Devices
Dispute Resolution Panel scheduled for December 14, 2011.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-31105 Filed 12-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29338-29340]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09451]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0387; FRL-10007-38]

Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
acequinocyl in or on the bushberry subgroup 13-07B. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 15, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 14, 2020, 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-2019-0387, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing 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-2019-0387 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
July 14, 2020. 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-2019-0387, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 30, 2019 (84 FR 45702) (FRL-9998-
15),

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 9E8768)
by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540.
The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing
a tolerance for residues of acequinocyl, 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-
1,4,naphthalenedione and its metabolite 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-
naphthoquinone expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in or on the
bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 3 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Arysta LifeScience
North America Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.

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 acequinocyl including exposure
resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with acequinocyl follows.
    On June 7, 2018, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule
establishing tolerances for residues of acequinocyl in or on guava and
the tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A
based on the Agency's conclusion that aggregate exposure to acequinocyl
is safe for the general population, including infants and children. See
(83 FR 26369) (FRL-9978-20). That document contains a summary of the
toxicological profile and points of departure, assumptions for exposure
assessment, and the Agency's determination regarding the children's
safety factor, which have not changed.
    EPA's exposure assessments have been updated to include the
additional exposure from use of acequinocyl on the bushberry subgroup
13-07B, i.e., reliance on tolerance-level residues and an assumption of
100 percent crop treated (PCT). EPA's aggregate exposure assessment
incorporated this additional dietary exposure, as well as exposure in
drinking water and from residential sources, although those latter
exposures are not impacted by the new use on the bushberry subgroup 13-
07B and thus have not changed since the last assessment. Further
information about EPA's risk assessment and determination of safety
supporting the tolerances established in the June 7, 2018 Federal
Register action, as well as the new acequinocyl tolerance can be found
at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Acequinocyl.
Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Petition for Tolerance for
Residues in/on Guava and Tropical and Subtropical, Small Fruit,
Inedible Peel, Subgroup 24A.'' dated May 16, 2018, in docket ID EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0376 and the document titled, ``Acequinocyl. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support the Petition for Tolerance for Residues in/on the
Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0387.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern: 58% of
the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for children 1 to 2 years
old, the population group of concern. Chronic dietary risks are below
the Agency's level of concern: 54% of the chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD) for children 1 to 2 years old, the group with the highest
exposure. There is not expected to be any residential handler exposure,
and only post-application dermal exposures are expected from registered
uses of acequinocyl in residential areas. Residential post-application
oral and inhalation exposures are not expected. Using the exposure
assumptions described for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs above the LOC of 100 for all scenarios assessed and are
not of concern.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to acequinocyl residues. More detailed information
on the subject action to establish a tolerance in or on the Bushberry
subgroup 13-07B can be found in the document entitled, ``Acequinocyl.
Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Petition for Tolerance for
Residues in/on the Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B'' by going to http://www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is available in the docket
established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES. Locate
and click on the hyperlink for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0387.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    There are adequate residue analytical methods for enforcing
tolerances for acequinocyl residues of concern in/on the registered
plant and livestock commodities. These methods include two high-
performance liquid chromatography methods with tandem mass-spectroscopy
detection (HPLC/MS/MS) for determining residues in/on fruit and nut
crops and livestock matrices.
    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 not established a MRL for acequinocyl in or on the
bushberry subgroup 13-07B.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of acequinocyl,
including its metabolites and degradates in or on the bushberry
subgroup 13-07B at 3 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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: April 1, 2020.
Michael Goodis,
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.  180.599, amend the table in paragraph (a) by adding in
alphabetical order an entry for ``Bushberry subgroup 13-07B'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  180.599  Acequinocyl; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B...............................               3

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2020-09451 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48361-48362]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0746]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0118

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0118,
Various International Agreement Certificates and Documents; without
change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 12,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0746] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents.
    In response to your comments, we may revise the this ICR or decide
not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2019-0746], and
must be received by November 12, 2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Various International Agreement Certificates and Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0118.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with the
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Coast Guard established a
voluntary inspection program for vessels who wish to document
compliance with the requirements of the MLC. U.S. commercial vessels
that operate on international routes are eligible to participate. The
Coast Guard issues

voluntary compliance certificates as proof of compliance with the MLC.
    Need: This information is needed to determine if a vessel is in
compliance with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.
    Forms:
     CG-16450, Maritime Labour Certificate (Statement of
Voluntary Compliance).
     CG-16450A, Interim Maritime Labour Certificate (Statement
of Voluntary Compliance).
     CG-16450B, Declaration of Maritime Labour Certificate--
Part I (Statement of Voluntary Compliance).
     CG-16450C, United States Coast Guard, Maritime Labour
Convention, 2006 Inspection Report.
    Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 625
hours a year to 653 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated
annual number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: September 10, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2019-19844 Filed 9-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4373]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

January 20, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilberton Power Company................................      EG10-1-000
CPV Keenan II Renewable Energy.........................      EG10-2-000
Vantage Wind Energy LLC................................      EG10-3-000
Three Buttes Windpower, LLC............................      EG10-4-000
Grant County Wind, LLC.................................      EG10-5-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of December, 2009, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1528 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P