[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35822-35823]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14659]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31087; 812-14297]

Northern Lights Fund Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

June 18, 2014.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a)
under the Act.

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

SUMMARY: Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
open-end management investment companies relying on rule 12d1-2 under
the Act to invest in certain financial instruments.

Applicants: Northern Lights Fund Trust (the ``Trust''), Clark Capital
Management Group, Inc. (``CLARK'') and Northern Lights Distributors,
LLC (``NLD'').

DATES: Filing Date: The application was filed on April 2, 2014, and
amended on June 11, 2014.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on July 14, 2014, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: c/o James Ash, Gemini Fund
Services, LLC, 80 Arkay Drive, Suite 110, Hauppauge, NY 11788.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
CLARK, a Pennsylvania corporation, is registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'').
CLARK currently serves as investment adviser to certain series of the
Trust.\1\ NLD, a Nebraska limited liability company and a broker-dealer
registered under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act''), serves as the distributor for the Funds (as defined below) that
are series of the Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Series of the Trust for which CLARK acts as investment
adviser are the (i) Navigator Equity Hedged Fund, (ii) Navigator
Duration Neutral Municipal Bond Fund, (iii) Navigator Sentry Managed
Volatility Fund, and (iv) Navigator Fixed Income Total Return Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request the exemption to the extent necessary to
permit any existing or future series of the Trust and any other
existing or future registered open-end management investment company or
series thereof that (a) is advised by CLARK or any person controlling,
controlled by or under common control with CLARK (any such adviser or
CLARK, an ``Adviser''); (b) invests in other registered open-end
management investment companies (``Underlying Funds'') in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act; and (c) is also eligible to invest in
securities (as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the Act) in reliance on
rule 12d1-2 under the Act (the ``Funds''), to also invest, to the
extent consistent with its investment objectives, policies, strategies
and limitations, in financial instruments that may not be securities
within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the Act (``Other
Investments'').\2\ Applicants also request that the order exempt any
entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with NLD,
that now or in the future acts as principal underwriter with respect to
the transactions described in the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the requested
order are named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the
order in the future will comply with the terms and condition of the
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each
Fund's board of trustees will review the advisory fees charged by the
Fund's Adviser to ensure that they are based on services provided that
are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided
pursuant to the advisory agreement of any investment company in which
the Fund may invest.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered
investment company (``acquiring company'') may acquire securities of
another investment company (``acquired company'') if such securities
represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting
stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if
such securities, together with the securities of other investment
companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total
assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered
open-end investment company may sell its securities to another
investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own
more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than
10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment
companies and companies controlled by them.
    2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides, in part, that section
12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an

acquired company purchased by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquired
company and acquiring company are part of the same group of investment
companies; (ii) the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired
companies that are part of the same group of investment companies,
government securities, and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales
loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the
acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to
section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the Act by a securities association
registered under section 15A of the Exchange Act or by the Commission;
and (iv) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from
acquiring securities of registered open-end investment companies or
registered unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or
(G) of the Act.
    3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end
investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on
section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities
issued by another registered investment company in the same group of
investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (i)
Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same
group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on
section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (ii) securities (other
than securities issued by an investment company); and (iii) securities
issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on
rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2,
``securities'' means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the
Act.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or
from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and
provisions of the Act. Applicants submit that their request for relief
meets this standard.
    5. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an
exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds to invest in Other
Investments while investing in Underlying Funds. Applicants state that
the Funds will comply with rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact
that the Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other
Investments. Applicants assert that permitting the Funds to invest in
Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any
of the concerns that the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed
to address.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the
Act, except for paragraph (a)(2) to the extent that it restricts any
Fund from investing in Other Investments as described in the
application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14659 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1501]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00249]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-303-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. American Transmission Systems, Inc.;
Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective
Date

    On December 31, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
ER15-303-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness
and reasonableness of American Transmission Systems, Inc.'s (ATSI)
12.38 percent return on equity in conjunction with ATSI's October 31,
2014 section 205 filing proposing revisions to its with transmission
formula rate and Protocols. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. et al., 149
FERC ] 61,292 (2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. ER15-303-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 6, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00249 Filed 1-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION IN LIEU OF CHLOROFORM MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGING MILLS IN THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY OF THE PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ( RENEWAL) ( 40 CFR PART 430)

EPA ICR Number 2015.02 OMB Control Number 2040 0242 May 2005 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION...................................... 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection.......................................................................... 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract .............................................................................. 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ............................................................. 2 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection............................................................................ 2 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data ............................................................................ 3 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................... 3 3( a) Non duplication ...................................................................................................... 3 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission ..................................................... 4 3( c) Consultations........................................................................................................... 4 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection ................................................................. 4 3( e) General Guidelines .................................................................................................. 5 3( f) Confidentiality ......................................................................................................... 5 3( g) Sensitive Questions.................................................................................................. 5 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED................................ 5 4( a) Respondents and SIC Codes .................................................................................... 5 4( b) Information Requested............................................................................................. 5 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT......................................... 7 5( a) Agency Activities..................................................................................................... 7 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management ............................................................... 8 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility............................................................................................. 8 5( d) Collection Schedule ................................................................................................. 8 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION............................. 9 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden ................................................................................ 9 6( b) Estimating Respondent Cost .................................................................................. 12 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ...................................................................... 13 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs .......................... 14 6( e) Burden Statement .................................................................................................. 14 Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page iii LIST OF TABLES Table 6.1 Number of Eligible Mills and Lines ......................................................................... 9 Table 6.2 Recurring Burden for Activities Related to Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring .......................................................... 10 Table 6.3 Recurring Burden Reduction from Minimum Monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02.................................................................................... 11 Table 6.4 Total Burden Reduction Resulting from Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring ......................................................... 12 Table 6.5 Summary of Incurred and reduced Annual Respondent Burden and Costs ................................................................................................. 14 Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ( EPA ICR No. 2015.02) ( OMB Control Number 2040 0242).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community for voluntary certification in lieu of chloroform monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with implementation of the minimum monitoring requirements of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards ( Cluster Rules; 40 CFR Part 430), which were published on April 15, 1998 for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory ( Subpart B). See 63 FR 18504 18751. Certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements allows direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards under 40 CFR Part 430 in lieu of monitoring at a fiber line required by 40 CFR 430.02 by voluntarily certifying ( 1) that the fiber line is not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents and ( 2) that it also maintains certain process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period. This is a renewal ICR.

Initial compliance demonstration consists of the time period, not less than two years, during which 104 monitoring data measurements are collected per minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 ( or more frequently if required by the permitting or pretreatment control authority) for each fiber line the facility wishes to certify. During this time period, the facility will monitor and maintain records of the range of certain process and operating conditions that the fiber lines are operated within. The collected monitoring data will be used to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards for each fiber line and provide confirmation that the fiber line, if operated within the range of certain process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period, continues to comply with the chloroform limitations and standards.

Facilities that choose to certify any or all of their fiber lines with their NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority, in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 430, will be required to submit periodic reports certifying that the fiber line( s) are operating within the range of certain process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period. Mills that voluntarily choose to certify will be required to maintain records of certain process and operating conditions, and also will be required to notify their NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority if their certified fiber lines no longer operate within the range of process and operating conditions. At the discretion of the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority, the facility may then be required to again monitor at their fiber lines as required by 40 CFR 430.02. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 2 Applicable facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring will experience a total reduction in overall monitoring, reporting, and analytical burden and costs associated with the minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02. The universe eligible for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring consists of 84 direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills.

This is a renewal ICR covering the incurred burden and costs for the estimated 80 out of the universe of 84 direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills that for EPA ICR No. 2015.01 were anticipated to voluntarily certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring and the subsequent overall reduction in burden and costs incurred by these facilities as a result of reduced monitoring, reporting, and analytical requirements per 40 CFR 430.02. This ICR does not cover the burden and costs for State NPDES permit and pretreatment control authorities or EPA associated with facilities certifying their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring because it is anticipated that there will be an exact trade off between the burden and costs incurred from reviewing periodic certification reports for voluntarily participating fiber lines versus reviewing periodic chloroform monitoring data for facilities complying with 40 CFR 430.02. Incurred burden and costs of certification for State NPDES permit authorities or EPA are described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR ( OMB 2040 0243) for direct dischargers. The burden and cost of certification for pretreatment control authorities are generically covered by National Pretreatment Program ICR ( OMB 2040 0009) for indirect dischargers. Review functions that may incur burden include actions in response to a mill voluntarily choosing to certify in lieu of monitoring that notifies their NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority that its participating fiber line( s) are operating outside the range of process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection As mentioned above, EPA established minimum monitoring frequencies for chloroform for existing and new direct and indirect discharging mills within Subpart B under authority of Clean Water Act ( CWA) Section 308 to demonstrate compliance with existing effluent limitations and standards for chloroform ( and other pollutant parameters) promulgated under 40 CFR Part 430. EPA is also allowing applicable facilities to voluntarily demonstrate compliance with chloroform limitations and standards by certifying their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02. EPA has determined that this voluntary certification option significantly reduces the overall compliance burden and costs associated with meeting and demonstrating compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards. EPA has also determined that an initial compliance demonstration is necessary for each participating mill to establish the range of normal variability in process and operating parameters that are consistent with compliance with the chloroform effluent limitations. Once this range is established for each participating fiber line, periodic certification reports are submitted to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority to confirm and certify that the fiber line continues to comply with Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 3 the chloroform effluent limitations and standards. The Agency= s authority to provide for this voluntary certification option in lieu of minimum monitoring is Section 402( a)( 2) of the CWA which directs EPA to prescribe permit conditions to assure compliance with requirements Aincluding conditions on data and information collection, reporting and such other requirements as [ the Administrator] deems appropriate.@

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The primary users of the data are the owners and operators of direct and indirect discharging pulp and paper mills in Subparts B and NPDES permitting, pretreatment control and enforcement authorities. Citizen groups also use this data to independently assess facility compliance.

EPA expects that the initial compliance demonstration and periodic certification reports will be used by NPDES and pretreatment control authorities to determine compliance with the Cluster Rules effluent limitations and standards for chloroform, establish permit and pretreatment control agreement conditions to include the voluntary certification option, and revise permit requirements as may be necessary based on data from the initial compliance demonstration, certification reports, and any additional information and data the mill may be required to report. EPA anticipates that State and NPDES permitting and pretreatment control authorities will only need to conduct detailed technical reviews of certification reports in the event the reports indicate noncompliance with the NPDES permit or pretreatment control agreement.

Mills that voluntarily choose to participate may elect to assert claims of confidential business information ( CBI), according to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 2, on any portions of the process and operating data submitted to support a certification in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform. However, CBI claims will not be appropriate for periodic reports simply certifying that mill operations remain within the ranges of process and operating parameters established during the initial compliance demonstration.

3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 430, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:

$ EPA Information Systems Inventory,

$ Government Information Locator System ( GILS), and $ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 4 Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate collection requirements. EPA has concluded that there is no other way to obtain the initial compliance demonstration and certification information addressed in this ICR.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission EPA solicited comments on this ICR prior formal submission to OMB. EPA published a formal notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2004 ( 69 FR 52883 52888). EPA received no comments.

3( c) Consultations As mentioned above, EPA solicited public comments on the current draft ICR. Additionally, EPA has consulted with the public, industry and States on the certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The certification option requires the collection of 104 measurements of chloroform data over a period not less than two years during the initial compliance demonstration period per minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 ( or more frequently if required by the permitting or pretreatment control authority), documenting of process and operating conditions, and subsequent monthly reporting and recordkeeping via periodic certification reports. Chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 430 as part of the initial compliance demonstration is described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR ( OMB 2040 0243) for direct dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR ( OMB 2040 0009) for indirect dischargers. Mill operators collect such data on process and operating conditions independent of this requirement for purposes of monitoring and optimizing bleach plant, chemical recovery, and wastewater treatment plant operations. EPA determined that the number of chloroform data points collected during the initial compliance demonstration are necessary because there are potentially many sources of variability in effluent discharges of unit operations in each participating fiber line. While available information used by EPA to understand and establish certification requirements capture the most likely sources of variability, all mill specific sources of variability may not be accounted for. Therefore, EPA was concerned that less frequent monitoring would not provide the information necessary to ensure that mills collect adequate data to define ranges of process and operating parameters within which they will subsequently be required to operate to assure compliance with the chloroform effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated as part of the Cluster Rules while also successfully producing products of acceptable quality. See 63 FR 18571 72. EPA determined that periodic certification reports are necessary to confirm that facilities with participating fiber lines are operating within the range of process and operating conditions identified during the initial compliance demonstration period.

The frequency of submission of periodic certification reports is the same as discharge monitoring reports ( DMRs) required for other pollutant parameters for direct dischargers by their Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 5 NPDES permits, Periodic Compliance Reports ( PCRs) for other pollutant parameters for indirect dischargers, and provides an efficient means for submitting information to the permit writer and pretreatment control authority.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2).

3( f) Confidentiality As noted in 2( b) above, mills that voluntarily choose to participate may elect to assert claims of confidential business information ( CBI), according to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 2, on any portions of the process and operating data submitted to support a certification in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform. However, CBI claims will not be appropriate for periodic reports simply certifying that mill operations remain within the ranges of process and operating parameters established during the initial compliance demonstration.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and SIC and NAICS Codes The respondent universe for this ICR will be: 1) approximately 84 direct and indirect discharging chemical pulp mills included in Subpart B ( Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Category ( SIC 2611, 2631) ( NAICS 32211, 322121, 322122, 32213).

4( b) Information Requested The following section outlines the requirements of the voluntary certification option and information requested. During the initial compliance demonstration period, the facility must collect 24 hour composite samples of its representative bleach plant effluent( s) on a weekly ( or more frequent) basis and analyze these samples for chloroform. All of the monitoring results during the initial compliance demonstration period must be in compliance with the chloroform effluent limitations and standards. If a mill chooses to sample more frequent than weekly, then it is the mill= s responsibility to ensure that such more frequent sampling captures the range of process and operating parameter variability that occurs during normal operations. Once this range is established, if mill operations do not remain within that range during the subsequent period of certification in lieu of minimum monitoring, violation will occur and minimum monitoring to recertify will be required. During each 24 hour sampling period, the facility must maintain records of the following bleach plant process and operating parameters: Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 6 ( a) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; ( b) The chlorine ( Cl2 ) content of chlorine dioxide ( ClO2) used on the bleach line; ( c) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; ( d) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate; and ( e) The chlorine containing compounds used for bleaching ( i. e., the bleach sequence).

At many mills monitoring of process and operating parameters is accomplished electronically by computerized distributed control systems ( DCS).

When the facility has completed its initial compliance demonstration, it may request that its permitting or pretreatment control authority modify its permit or pretreatment control agreement to discontinue weekly chloroform monitoring of bleach plant effluent. At the time that it makes this request, the facility must:

( a) Certify that the fiber line does not use either elemental chlorine or hypochlorite; ( b) Provide records demonstrating that, based on 104 measurements collected over a period not less than two years, that the fiber line complies with applicable chloroform limitations or standards; and ( c) Document the range of process and operating conditions that occurred during the collection of samples used to demonstrate initial compliance. Specifically, the facility must identify the chlorine containing compounds used for bleaching ( i. e., the bleach sequence). The facility must also document the maximum values, observed during sample collection of: ( i) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; ( ii) The chlorine ( Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide ( ClO2) used on the bleach line; ( iii) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage; and ( iv) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate.

Thereafter, at the same frequency that the facility submits discharge monitoring reports ( DMRs) to its permitting authority or periodic compliance reports ( PCRs) to its pretreatment control authority, the facility must certify that:

( a) The pH of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage has not exceeded the pH range measured during initial compliance demonstration sample collection; ( b) The chlorine ( Cl2) content of chlorine dioxide ( ClO2) used on the bleach line has not exceeded the maximum Cl2 content of ClO2 used during initial compliance demonstration sample collection; ( c) The kappa factor of the first chlorine dioxide bleaching stage has not exceeded the maximum kappa factor employed during initial compliance demonstration sample collection; ( d) The total bleach line chlorine dioxide application rate has not exceeded the maximum chlorine dioxide application rate employed during initial compliance demonstration sample collection; and ( e) The chlorine containing compounds used for bleaching are unchanged from those used during initial compliance demonstration sample collection. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 7 The facility also must maintain on site records for the fiber line of these process and operating conditions. If the facility purposely changes or unintentionally fails to maintain process and operating conditions on the fiber line representative of those employed during initial compliance demonstration, the facility must notify the permitting or pretreatment control authority and again monitor for chloroform, and recertify the fiber line to continue the certification option to demonstrate compliance in lieu of minimum monitoring.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities Activities undertaken by EPA under this information collection primarily include oversight of the NPDES and pretreatment control programs, and where EPA is the NPDES permitting or pretreatment control authority, review of data and information collected during the initial compliance demonstration period, review of periodic certification reports, and where necessary, follow up actions.

The extent to which EPA reviews reports and data in assessing permit and pretreatment control agreement compliance with the certification option may vary. For example, EPA may conduct a more extensive review of permittees that are, or have been, in violation of their certification and permit or pretreatment control agreement requirements, than of permittees who have been in full compliance. EPA may limit its review of data submitted by fully compliant permittees to a simple determination of continuing compliance through certification. In most cases, EPA will forward copies of reports to the States. EPA does not require the unauthorized States to review data, but several States voluntarily conduct the review and use the results in their own programs.

EPA regions may also review data from major permittees in NPDES and pretreatment control authorized States while performing program oversight functions ( e. g., during file audits and when compiling statistical compliance summaries).

Reported data is often stored in the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) for reference. EPA and States may use this data to evaluate potential compliance problems, focus inspection efforts, conduct spot check reviews and determine appropriate enforcement action. PCS is available for public review at http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ water. html# pcs. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 8 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Respondents typically report collected compliance data for all pollutant parameters on Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMRs) for direct dischargers and periodic compliance reports ( PCRs) for indirect dischargers. For those facilities that choose to certify in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring at a fiber line, periodic certification reports may be submitted with DMRs and PCRs. Allowing combined reporting for both the certification option ( for chloroform) and compliance ( for all other pollutant parameters) is one method that EPA has used to improve its collection methodology. EPA expects that the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule ( CROMERR) will be finalized in the next few months, which will enable EPA to accept electronic submission of data. The electronic submission of certification reports, DMR and PCR data is voluntary and will be an alternative to the paper submissions. EPA makes use of the PCS database to store, track and access this information.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA considered less burdensome information collection mechanisms for small entities, but chose not to alter the collection procedure for the following reasons:

$ The certification in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform required by 40 CFR 430.02 provides an overall reduction in burden and costs from the minimum monitoring requirements included in the Cluster Rules, for which EPA has already certified will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is used in the RFA ( see Section X. C. of the Preamble to the final Cluster Rules published in the Federal Register on April 15, 1998 ( see 63 FR 18611).

$ Moreover, mills will be subject to the information collection only if they choose to participate in the chloroform certification program.

5( d) Collection Schedule The information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to coincide with existing reporting schedules. The timeframes for submitting periodic certification reports and associated activities are outlined below:

$ Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping are performed on a continual basis;

$ Reports are to be prepared for submission to NPDES permit or pretreatment control authorities at a frequency to be determined by these authorities, but no less than once per year. EPA expects that such reporting frequencies will be consistent with existing reporting requirements already applicable to mills. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 9 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden This section describes the methods EPA used to estimate the burden to respondents associated with the initial compliance demonstration and periodic compliance reports required with the certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR Part 430. The number of facilities potentially affected by this ICR is listed in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1 Number of Eligible Mills and Lines Subpart B, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Number of Facilities Number of Bleach Lines Direct Dischargers 75 120 Indirect Dischargers 9 14 Total 84 134 For ICR 205.01 EPA estimated that of the 75 existing direct discharging Subpart B mills eligible for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements, consisting of a total of 120 fiber lines, 74 facilities, for a total of 118 fiber lines, would choose to certify. EPA estimated that of the nine existing indirect discharging Subpart B mills eligible for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements, consisting of a total of 14 fiber lines, six facilities, for a total of nine fiber lines, would choose to certify. EPA is carrying these assumptions for this renewal ICR.

( i) Initial Compliance Demonstration EPA does not expect any additional facilities to enroll in the voluntary certification in lieu of chloroform monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with implementation of the minimum monitoring requirements of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards ( ii) Periodic Certification Reports and Recordkeeping EPA estimates a recurring reporting burden of 0.5 hours monthly per facility for submitting periodic certification reports to the permitting or pretreatment control authority to confirm that the certified fiber lines are not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents and are maintaining the process and operating conditions within the range documented during the initial compliance period. This burden consists of a certification report submitted to the permitting or pretreatment control authority and maintaining records which document and substantiate submitted certification reports. This burden estimate is based upon monthly submissions of DMRs for direct dischargers and PCRs for indirect dischargers, including Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 10 certification reports.

The total recurring burden incurred by the 80 direct and indirect discharging mills anticipated to certify their 127 fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring for chloroform is summarized below.

Table 6.2 Recurring Burden for Activities Related to Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Submission of monthly certification reports Number of Affected Facilities Monthly Burden ( hours) Total Annual Burden ( hours)

Direct 74 0.5 444 Indirect 6 0.5 36 Total 80 0.5 480 ( iii) Recurring Burden Reduction from Minimum Monitoring Required by 40 CFR 430.02 Facilities that have certified their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 will experience a reduction in recurring burden associated with reduced monitoring and reporting, namely the discontinuance of weekly chloroform monitoring at bleach plant effluent( s). Annual sampling burden associated with chloroform minimum monitoring per fiber line is estimated at 156 hours. Annual reporting burden associated with chloroform minimum monitoring per facility is estimated at two hours. Description of these estimates can be found in Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR ( OMB 2040 0243) for direct dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR ( OMB 2040 0009) for indirect dischargers. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 11 Table 6.3 Recurring Burden Reduction from Minimum Monitoring Required by 40 CFR 430.02 Activity Number of Affected Facilities Annual Burden ( hours) Total Annual Burden ( hours)

Sampling for minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 ( Direct) 118 fiber lines 156 18,408 Sampling for minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 ( Indirect) 9 fiber lines 156 1,404 Reporting for minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 ( Direct) 74 mills 2 148 Reporting for minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 ( Indirect) 6 mills 2 12 ANNUAL BURDEN REDUCTION 19,972 EPA does not estimate a reduction in recurring recordkeeping burden associated with minimum monitoring requirements for those facilities that certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring because records are maintained for the monitoring for other pollutant parameters, regardless of the discontinuation of minimum monitoring for chloroform.

( iv) NPDES and Pretreatment Control authorized State Respondent Burden The burden and associated costs to NPDES and pretreatment control authorized State authorities for reviewing reports for the initial compliance demonstration for facilities wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring, revising NPDES permits and pretreatment control agreements, reviewing periodic certification reports, and conducting followup actions are estimated to exactly offset previous recurring burden for processing and analyzing chloroform monitoring data included in the facility= s DMR or PCR and conducting follow up actions related to compliance. Therefore, the Agency does not estimate any addition or reduction of recurring burden for NPDES and pretreatment control authorities with facilities wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring.

The additional and reduced burden for facilities wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02, showing an overall reduction in total recurring burden, is summarized below. Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 12 Table 6.4 Total Burden Reduction Resulting from Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Activity Total Annual Burden ( hours)

Annual burden reduction from sampling and reporting for minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 19,972 Annual burden for reporting for certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring 480 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN REDUCTION 19,492 6( b) Estimating Respondent Cost ( i) Estimating Labor Costs ( 2004 Dollars)

Estimates for respondent labor costs were prepared using industry specific labor rates identical to those used for the EPA ICR Number 1878.01, included overhead and fringe benefits, and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index: To verify the validity of the adjusted rates EPA obtained national industry specific wage estimates for the pulp, paper, and paperboard mills from the Labor Department1. Noting that the Labor Department wages were lower, EPA decided to apply the more conservative estimates from the previous ICR2.

1 May 2003 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100  Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for Architecture and Engineering Occupations ( SOC Code 17 0000) and Production Occupation ( SOC Code 51 0000), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits, are 45.64 and 27.14 respectively.

2 EPA ICR # 2015.01, Voluntary Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, November 2001. Technician : $ 64.58 / hour Operator $ 32.81 / hour Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 13 Technician labor is applied to reporting and recordkeeping burdens. Operator labor is applied to sampling burden. This ICR covers an increase in recurring reporting burden related to periodic certification reports and a reduction in sampling and reporting burden related to the discontinuance of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02.

( ii) Operations and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform required by 40 CFR 430.02 will experience an overall reduction in O& M costs related to the discontinuance of collecting and shipping chloroform samples to outside laboratories for analysis. The analytical cost for chloroform performed at outside laboratories is estimated at $ 320 per sample, taken from EPA ICR Number 2015.01 ( originally from the BAT cost model in the ABAT Cost Model Support Document@ [ DCN 13953]) and adjusted with the Consumer Price Index to 2004 dollars. Collection of two chloroform samples per fiber line ( i. e., bleach plant) per week is estimated to meet minimum monitoring requirements. This estimate is described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR ( OMB OMB 2040 0243) for direct dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR ( OMB 2040 0009) for indirect dischargers.

The reduction in recurring O& M burden for facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring for chloroform required by 40 CFR 430.02 consists of the elimination of sample collection and shipping costs, and chloroform analytical costs.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost EPA burden is based on management and support activities for facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 located in:

States without NPDES or pretreatment control authority: EPA activities include reviewing reports for the initial compliance demonstration for facilities wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring, revising NPDES permits and pretreatment control agreements, reviewing periodic certification reports, and conducting follow up actions. Burden associated with these activities are estimated to exactly offset previous recurring burden for processing and analyzing chloroform monitoring data included in the facility= s DMR or PCR and conducting follow up actions related to compliance.

States with NPDES and pretreatment control authority: EPA activities include program support, such as review of NPDES permit and pretreatment control agreements renewal applications and draft permits and agreements, and review of information submitted by the facilities, including certification reports. Burden associated with these activities are described in the Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category ICR ( OMB 2040 Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 14 0243) for direct dischargers and the National Pretreatment Program ICR ( OMB 2040 0009) for indirect dischargers and will not be impacted by the certification option.

The Agency does not estimate any addition or reduction of recurring burden for EPA associated with facilities intending to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Table 6.5 summarizes the total annual burden and costs incurred for facilities that choose to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring and the associated overall reduction in annual burden and costs for reduced minimum monitoring requirements.

Table 6.5 Summary of Incurred and Reduced Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Activity Annual Labor ( Hours) Annual Costs ( 2004 Dollars)

Incurred Annual Burden and Costs ( Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements)

Submission of monthly certification reports 480 $ 30,998 Reduced Annual Burden and Costs ( Minimum Monitoring Required by 40 CFR 430.02)

Sampling 19,812 $ 650,032 Reporting 160 $ 10,333 Analytical $ 4,226,560 Total 19,972 $ 4,886,925 Total Reduction in Annual Respondent Burden and Costs 19,492 $ 4,855,927 6( e) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6 hours per respondent. Certification in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring eliminates all sampling burden associated with the minimum monitoring requirements for chloroform. A total of 19,492 hours annually would be saved by the 80 direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills that EPA anticipated would choose to certify their 127 fiber lines. At an hourly operator rate of $ 32.81 per hour for sampling activities, reduction in sampling costs associated with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $ 650,032 per year ($ 32.81 x 19,812). In addition, the elimination of chloroform sampling activities results in an associated reduction in analytical costs for the outside lab analysis of chloroform samples. The total reduction in analytical costs associated with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills Certification in Lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements Page 15 would be $ 4,226,560 per year ( 127 fiber lines x 2 samples per fiber line x 52 weeks x $ 320 per analysis). An increase in reporting burden for the 80 mills would be 320 ( 480  160) hours annually, based on the submission of periodic certification reports in lieu of reporting chloroform compliance data in DMRs and PCRs. At an hourly technician rate of $ 64.58 for reporting activities, an increase in reporting costs associated with certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $ 20,666 per year ($ 64.58 x 320). Therefore, the overall reduction in the total burden and cost to demonstrate compliance with minimum monitoring requirements by certifying fiber lines in lieu of minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for the 80 mills would be $ 4,855,927 per year ($ 650,032 + $ 4,226,560  $ 20,666). This reduction in cost translates to approximately $ 60,699 annually per mill.

The Agency does not estimate any change in burden for State authorized NPDES and pretreatment control authorities or EPA from the burden associated with minimum monitoring required by 40 CFR 430.02 for facilities ( i. e., permitees) wishing to certify their fiber lines in lieu of chloroform minimum monitoring requirements.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2004 0028, which is available for public viewing 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2004 0028) and OMB control number ( 2040 0242) in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24349-24353]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09706]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0397; FRL-9383-1]

Bacillus mycoides Isolate J; Time-Limited Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J
in or on potato, when used in accordance with the terms of the section
18 emergency exemption. This action is in response to EPA's granting of
an emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide
on potato. The time-limited exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance expires on December 31, 2015.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 25, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 24, 2013, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0397, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and
select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 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-
2012-0397 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 June 24, 2013. 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-2012-0397, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing a time-limited exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for Bacillus mycoides isolate J, in or on potato. This time-
limited exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires on
December 31, 2015.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances and exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance can be established without providing notice or period for
public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18
related time-limited tolerances or exemptions to set binding precedents
for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to
other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to
establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of 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. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which 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.* *
*''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Emergency Exemption for Bacillus mycoides isolate J on Potato and
Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

    The Montana Department of Agriculture requested a specific
emergency exemption, for the use of the unregistered active ingredient
(ai), Bacillus mycoides isolate J (BmJ), to control tuber infections
caused by potato virus Y (PVY), on generation 1 (G1) and generation 2
(G2) potatoes grown for certified seed potato stock. There are no
registered alternatives to control PVY infections, only registered
alternatives that inadequately control the aphids which vector the
virus. The Montana Department of Agriculture, requested use for 2,675
acres of seed potato.
    After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an
emergency condition existed for this State, and that the criteria for
approval of an emergency exemption were met. Accordingly, EPA
authorized a specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of
Bacillus mycoides isolate J on potato for control of PVY in Montana.

    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of Bacillus
mycoides isolate J in or on potato. In doing so, EPA considered the
safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the
necessary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA
section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with
FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the
emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation
and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is
issuing this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without
notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section
408(l)(6). This time-limited exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance expires on December 31, 2015. EPA will take action to revoke
the time-limited exemption from the requirement of a tolerance earlier
if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant
information on this pesticide indicates that the residues are not safe.
    Because this time-limited exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not
made any decisions about whether Bacillus mycoides isolate J meets
FIFRA's registration requirements for use on potato or whether
permanent tolerances or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does
not believe that this time-limited exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance serves as a basis for registration of Bacillus mycoides
isolate J by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c).
Nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in
any State other than Montana to use this pesticide on the applicable
crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency
exemption applicable within that State. For additional information
regarding the emergency exemption for Bacillus mycoides isolate J,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by
Bacillus mycoides isolate J, are discussed in this unit. Refer to risk
assessments in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0303 with the titles: (1)
BPPD Review of Product Chemistry and Toxicity/Pathogenicity Data
Submitted by Montana Microbial Products, for EUP of BmjJ WP, which
contains Bacillus mycoides isolate J and (2) Ecological Risk Assessment
for Bacillus mycoides Isolate J, for additional information.
    The stomach is a hostile environment for most microbes, as most
oral exposure to microbes, leads to inactivation by stomach acids,
proteases, and subsequently bile salts (Ref. 1). In contrast, a
pulmonary exposure study provides those microbes that are capable of
infecting mammals with the greatest opportunity to express infectivity
by directing them into the lungs, from where they may enter the
bloodstream and other organs. Therefore, a microbe that does not show
significant infectivity in a pulmonary exposure study, presents
negligible risk via oral exposure.
    An Acute Pulmonary Toxicity/Pathogenicity study (OPPTS 885.3150) in
rats which were dosed intratracheally with Bacillus mycoides isolate J
at 1.1 x 10\8\ cfu/animal, did not show complete clearance from all
organs during the study's 35-day length. The test substance, however,
did show a pattern of clearance in most organs. This is similar to what
has been observed with other spore forming bacteria. Differential heat
treatment of tissue samples showed that most of the recovered organisms
were spores which are quiescent forms of this bacterium. Spores
routinely take long periods to be cleared from pulmonary exposures
(Ref. 2). Bacteria form spores when conditions do not support growth,
so the predominance of spores among the Bacillus mycoides isolate J
recovered from animal tissue, therefore indicates little infectivity.
No treated animals died and there were no signs in the animals of
toxicity or pathogenicity.
    Associated with the manufacture of Bacillus mycoides isolate J, as
well as all exposures during the previous experimental use permits,
more than 20 people have worked with Bacillus mycoides isolate J for
over 8 years, and no adverse effects or incidents of hypersensitivity
reaction have been reported associated with Bacillus mycoides isolate J
in the routine use of the experimental product.
    Given the ubiquitous nature of this bacterium on plants, in soil,
water, air, and decomposing plant tissue (Ref. 3), the lack of reported
human pathogenicity, along with the lack of mortality of the test
animals, and the absence of overt signs of toxicity or pathogenicity in
the animals during the course of this pulmonary study, there is not
expected to be an increase in dietary exposure or threshold effects of
concern to infants and children when Bacillus mycoides isolate J is
used as a foliar treatment on seed potatoes.
    This finding is consistent with a previously granted food-use
experimental use permit (82761-EUP-2), where the Agency granted
requests for waivers for Acute Oral Toxicity and Pathogenicity (OPPTS
885.3050); Acute Injection Toxicity and Pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3200);
Acute Oral Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1100); Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OPPTS
870.1300) mammalian studies for Bacillus mycoides isolate J, based on
the following:
    1. Bacillus mycoides is not reported as a human pathogen, or as a
cause of foodborne illness, food spoilage, or plant diseases, and does
not persist on plant surfaces. Due to the ubiquitous level of Bacillus
mycoides present in agricultural soils, there has been long term human
exposure to Bacillus mycoides in crops and to residual Bacillus
mycoides cells or spores in food crops (Ref. 3). No toxicity,
infectivity, or pathogenicity of Bacillus mycoides in humans was
reported in numerous searched citations.
    2. Bacillus mycoides is readily differentiable from other Bacillus
cereus group organisms in production batches (including Bacillus
thuringiensis, Bacillus pseudomycoides, Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus
cereus, and Bacillus weihenstephanensis) and well defined quality
control procedures are established to keep contaminants from
fermentation batches during the production of Bacillus mycoides isolate
J.
    3. In connection with the manufacture of Bacillus mycoides isolate
J, no adverse effects or incidents of hypersensitivity reaction have
been reported associated with Bacillus mycoides isolate J in the
routine use of the experimental product in a laboratory setting. Any
such effects would be subject to the reporting requirements of 40 CFR
166.32(a) and guidelines for reporting Hypersensitivity Incidents
(OPPTS 885.3400).

V. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-

occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or
surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    The authorized section 18 emergency exemption is not expected to
result in increased dietary exposures of Bacillus mycoides isolate J to
the general population based on the following:
    1. Food. The section 18 emergency exemption is for foliar
application on plants, grown from first and second generation seed
potatoes grown for seed stock. Only a small fraction of seed potatoes
collected from treated plants may enter the food chain as livestock
feed. The quantity of Bacillus mycoides isolate J applied to plant
foliage, 7.5 x 10\11\ spores/acre per application, is small compared to
the natural background levels of Bacillus mycoides.
    In agricultural soils, Bacillus mycoides typically occurs at about
10\5\ spores per gram. In persistence studies, performed on a variety
of crops (including peppers, potatoes, and sugar beets), the titer of
Bacillus mycoides isolate J applied to the foliage typically declines
from 10\6\ spores/cm\2\ to between 100 and 1,000 spores/cm\2\ over a 2-
week period. Specifically in potatoes, spores applied to foliage will
not directly contact tubers. Tubers are exposed to natural soil
concentrations of Bacillus mycoides that exceed the quantity of
Bacillus mycoides isolate J spores applied to potato foliage (Ref. 3).
    2. Drinking water exposure. According to the World Health
Organization, Bacillus species are often detected in drinking water
even after going through acceptable water treatment processes, largely
because the spores are resistant to these disinfection processes (Ref.
4). Should this microbial pesticide be present, no adverse effects are
expected from exposure to Bacillus mycoides through drinking water,
based on the results of toxicity studies described in Unit IV.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Natural background levels of Bacillus mycoides are reported to
typically occur at about 10\5\ spores per gram in agricultural soils.
Use of Bacillus mycoides isolate J pursuant to the section 18 emergency
exemption is not likely to result in increased exposure in the general
population because the 2,675 treated acres are not accessible to the
general population.

VI. Cumulative Effects

    Pursuant to section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA, EPA has considered
available information on the cumulative effects of such residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. These
considerations included the cumulative effects on infants and children
of such residues and other substances with a common method of toxicity.
Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity or pathogenicity
resulting from exposure to Bacillus mycoides isolate J, we conclude
that there are no cumulative effects for this bacterium.

VII. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants, and Children

    The Agency has determined that there is reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the U.S. population from exposure to residues of
Bacillus mycoides isolate J in connection with the section 18 emergency
exemption. This determination includes all anticipated dietary
exposures and other non-occupational exposures for which there is
reliable information. Oral ingestion of the Bacillus mycoides isolate J
organism on potatoes treated under the section 18 emergency exemption
is unlikely because the portion of the potato plant that is treated is
not intended for human or livestock consumption.
    Data submitted in a pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity study
performed at doses several orders of magnitude above expected exposure
revealed no signs of overt toxicity or pathogenicity in the test
animals. The pulmonary exposure route is more sensitive than an oral
exposure study which has the various inactivation processes discussed
in Unit IV. The results of an extensive literature search, which
included numerous citations of the test organism, yielded no reports of
its pathogenicity for mammals (Ref. 5).
    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall assess the
available information about consumption patterns among infants and
children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide
chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children
of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. In addition, section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA also provides that
EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA
determines that a different margin will be safe for infants and
children. In the absence of specific studies showing that infants and
children are not at risk, the Agency has retained a 10X safety factor
to account for gaps in the database for Bacillus mycoides isolate J. In
this instance, however, based on all available information, the Agency
concludes that Bacillus mycoides isolate J presents no oral toxicity
effects of concern. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern to
infants and children when Bacillus mycoides isolate J is used in
accordance with the authorized section 18 use directions.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    The pesticidal active ingredient, Bacillus mycoides isolate J is
not known to exert an influence on the endocrine system.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    Analytical methods for Bacillus mycoides isolate J that are
sufficient to justify the issuance of the section 18 emergency
exemption have been submitted to the Agency. An enforcement analytical
method is not required to support an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    No codex maximum residue levels exist for the microbial Bacillus
mycoides isolate J.

IX. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance is established for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J,
in or on potatoes. This time-limited exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance expires on December 31, 2015.

X. References

1. Martinsen, T.C., Bergh, K. & Waldrum, H.L., (2005) Gastric Juice:
A Barrier Against Infectious Diseases, Basic and Clinical
Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 96: 94-102.
2. USEPA. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Bacillus thuringiensis.
EPA738-R-98-004. March 1998.
3. Ludwig, W., Schleiffer, Whitman, W.H. (2009) Class I: Bacilli,
class. nov., in ``Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology'', 2nd
Edition, Volume 3, The Firmicutes, P. DeVos, G.M. Garrity, D. Jones,
N.R.Krieg, W. Ludwig, K.H. Schleiffer, & W.B. Whitman (eds.)
Springer Publishing.
4. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality.
(2011) Fourth Edition.
5. Logan, N.A. & Turnbull, P.C.B. (2003) Bacillus and other
Endospore-forming Bacteria, Chap 32. in ``Manual of Clinical

Microbiology'' 8th edition, P.R.Murray, E.J. Baron, J.H. Jorgensen,
M.A. Pfaller & R.H. Yolken (eds), ASM Press.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e)
and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted
these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XII. 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 12, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting 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. Revise Sec.  180.1269 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1269  Bacillus mycoides isolate J; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Bacillus mycoides isolate J is temporarily exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance when used as a fungicide on potatoes in
accordance with a valid Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) section 18 emergency exemption. This temporary exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance expires and is revoked on December
31, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2013-09706 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 31239]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11216]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  85 FR 29773, May
18, 2020.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, May 20,
2020 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
May 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: May 20, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11216 Filed 5-20-20; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68757-68759]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. P-13404-002, P-13405-002, P-13406-002, P-13407-002, P-
13408-002, P-13411-002, and P-13412-002]

Clean River Power MR-1, LLC; Clean River Power MR-2, LLC; Clean
River Power MR-3, LLC; Clean River Power MR-5, LLC; Clean River Power
MR-6, LLC; Clean River Power MR-7, LLC; Clean River Power MR-8, LLC;
Notice of Applications Tendered for Filing With the Commission and
Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    a. Type of Applications: Original Major Licenses.
    b. Project Nos.: 13404-002, 13405-002, 13406-002, 13407-002, 13408-
002, 13411-002, and 13412-002.
    c. Dated Filed: October 31, 2012.
    d. Applicants: Clean River Power MR-1, LLC; Clean River Power MR-2,
LLC; Clean River Power MR-3, LLC; Clean River Power MR-5, LLC; Clean
River Power MR-6, LLC; Clean River Power MR-7, LLC; and Clean River
Power MR-8, LLC (Clean River Power), subsidiaries of Free Flow Power
Corporation.
    e. Names of Projects: Beverly Lock and Dam Project, P-13404-002;
Devola Lock and Dam Project, P-13405-002; Malta/McConnelsville Lock and
Dam Project, P-13406-002; Lowell Lock and Dam Project, P-13407-002;
Philo Lock and Dam Project, P-13408-002; Rokeby Lock and Dam Project,
P-13411-002; and Zanesville Lock and Dam Project, P-13412-002.
    f. Location: At existing locks and dams formally owned and operated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers but now owned and operated by the
State of

Ohio on the Muskingum River in Washington, Morgan, and Muskingum
counties, Ohio (see table below for specific project locations).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Project No.           Projects        County(s)        City/town
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13404..............  Beverly Lock     Washington.....  Upstream of the
                        and Dam.                          city of
                                                          Beverly.
P-13405..............  Devola Lock and  Washington.....  Near the city
                        Dam.                              of Devola.
P-13406..............  Malta/           Morgan.........  Southern shore
                        McConnelsville                    of the town of
                        Lock and Dam.                     McConnelsville
                                                          .
P-13407..............  Lowell Lock and  Washington.....  West of the
                        Dam.                              city of
                                                          Lowell.
P-13408..............  Philo Lock and   Muskingum......  North of the
                        Dam.                              city of Philo.
P-13411..............  Rokeby Lock and  Morgan.........  Near the city
                        Dam.                              of Rokeby.
P-13412..............  Zanesville Lock  Muskingum......  Near the center
                        and Dam.                          of the city of
                                                          Zanesville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating Officer,
Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA
02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239
Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Alan Topalian, Regulatory Attorney, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Aaron Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: December 31, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    m. The applications are not ready for environmental analysis at
this time.
    n. The proposed Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located on the Muskingum River at river mile (RM) 24.6, and consist of
the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 75-
foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash racks;
(2) a 160-foot by 75-foot powerhouse located downstream of the dam on
the left bank of the Muskingum River; (3) two turbine-generator units
providing a combined installed capacity of 3.0 megawatts (MW); (4) a
65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot
substation; (6) a 970-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 17,853 megawatt-hours (MWh).
    The proposed Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located at RM 5.8, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
160-foot-long, 66-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch
clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 80-foot powerhouse
located on the bank of the Muskingum River opposite the existing lock;
(3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity
of 4.0 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a
40-foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 3,600-foot-long, three-phase,
overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to
the local utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The average annual generation would be about 20,760 MWh.
    The proposed Malta Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located at RM 49.4, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch
clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 80-foot powerhouse
located adjacent to the right bank of the dam; (3) two turbine-
generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4.0 MW; (4)
a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-
foot substation; (6) a 1,500-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 21,895 MWh.
    The proposed Lowell Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located at RM 13.6, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch
clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 75-foot powerhouse
located adjacent to the left bank of the dam; (3) two turbine-generator
units providing a combined installed capacity of 5 MW; (4) a 65-foot-
long, 75-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-foot by 40-foot
substation; (6) a 1,200-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 30,996 MWh.
    The proposed Philo Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located at RM 68.6, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
40-foot-long, 20-foot-high flap gate bay; (2) a 37-foot-long, 52-foot-
high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing trash
racks; (3) a 160-foot by 75-foot

powerhouse located on the bank of the Muskingum River opposite the
existing lock; (4) two turbine-generator units providing a combined
installed capacity of 3 MW; (5) a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube
section; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (7) a 1,600-foot-long,
three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the project
substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The average annual generation would be about 15,957 MWh.
    The proposed Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located at RM 57.4, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch
clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) a 160-foot by 75-foot powerhouse
located on the bank of the Muskingum River opposite the existing lock;
(3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity
of 4 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube section; (5) a 40-
foot by 40-foot substation; (6) a 490-foot-long, three-phase, overhead
69-kV transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 17,182 MWh.
    The proposed Zanesville Lock and Dam Water Power Project would be
located at RM 77.4, and consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
135-foot-long, 16-foot-high, 30-foot-wide intake structure with 2-inch
clear bar spacing trash racks; (2) two 10-foot diameter, 62-foot-long
buried steel penstocks; (3) a 45-foot by 37-foot powerhouse located
approximately 2,750 feet downstream of the dam; (4) two turbine-
generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 2 MW; (5) a
31-foot-long, 37-foot-wide draft tube; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot
substation; (7) a 400-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 12,295 MWh.
    The applicant proposes to operate all seven projects in a run-of-
river mode, such that the water surface elevations within each project
impoundment would be maintained at the crest of each respective dam
spillway.
    o. A copy of the applications are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The applications will be processed
according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Notice of Acceptance.............  January 2013.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments..  February 2013.
Comments on Scoping Document 1.........  April 2013.
Issue Scoping Document 2...............  April 2013.
Issue notice of ready for environmental  July 2013.
 analysis.
Commission staff issues EA.............  January 2014.
Comments due on EA.....................  February 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final amendments to the applications must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: November 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27961 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P