[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64831-64833]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23239]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96112; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-47]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Rule 7.44

October 20, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on October 11, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.44 relating to the Retail
Liquidity Program. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.44, which sets forth the
Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Program'').\4\ The purpose
of the Program is to attract retail order flow to the Exchange and
allow such order flow to receive potential price improvement. Rule 7.44
provides for a class of market participant called Retail Liquidity
Providers (``RLPs''), and non-RLP member organizations are able to
provide potential price improvement to retail investor orders in the
form of a non-displayed order that is priced better than the best
protected bid or offer, called a Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI
Order'').\5\ When there is an RPI Order in a particular security, the
Exchange disseminates an indicator, known as the Retail Liquidity
Identifier, that such interest exists.\6\ Retail Member Organizations
(``RMOs'') can submit a Retail Order to the Exchange, which interacts,
to the extent possible, with available contra-side RPI Orders and then
may interact with other liquidity on the Exchange or elsewhere,
depending on the Retail Order's instructions.\7\ The segmentation in
the Program allows retail order flow to receive potential price
improvement as a result of their order flow being deemed more desirable
by liquidity providers. The Program is currently limited to trades in
NYSE-listed securities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Program was established on a pilot basis in 2012 and was
approved by the Commission to operate on a permanent basis in 2019.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85160 (February 15, 2019),
84 FR 5754 (February 22, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2018-28). In connection with
the Commission's approval of the Program on a pilot basis, the
Commission granted the Exchange's request for exemptive relief from
Rule 612 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.612 (the ``Sub-Penny Rule''),
which, among other things, prohibits a national securities exchange
from accepting or ranking orders priced greater than $1.00 per share
in an increment smaller than $0.01. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-
NYSE-2011-55). The Exchange notes that the change proposed in this
filing has no substantive impact under the Sub-Penny Rule and thus
does not require an update or revision to the exemptive relief
previously granted by the Commission.
    \5\ See Rules 7.44(a)(1) (defining an RLP) and 7.44(a)(4)
(defining RPI Order).
    \6\ See Rule 7.44(j).
    \7\ See Rule 7.44(a)(2) (defining RMO); Rules 7.44(a)(3) and
7.44(k) (describing Retail Orders).
    \8\ See Rule 7.44(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify Rule 7.44 to expand the
Program's availability to all securities traded on the Exchange. Rule
7.44(a)(4) currently defines an RPI Order as consisting of ``non-
displayed interest in NYSE-listed securities that would trade at prices
better than the PBB or PBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as
such.'' To expand the program to permit RPI Orders in all securities on
the Exchange (i.e., both NYSE-listed securities and securities traded
on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges), the Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 7.44(a)(4) to delete the reference to ``NYSE-
listed securities,'' such that the rule would provide that an RPI Order
is ``non-displayed interest that would trade at prices better than the
PBB or PBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such.''
    The Exchange also proposes a conforming change to Rule 7.44(j),
which describes the Retail Liquidity Identifier disseminated when RPI
interest priced at least $0.001 better than the PBB or PBO for a
particular security is available in Exchange systems. Rule 7.44(j)
currently provides that the Retail Liquidity Identifier will be
disseminated through proprietary data feeds and through the
Consolidated Quotation System.\9\ Because the Exchange proposes to
permit RPI Orders in all securities, the Exchange proposes to update
Rule 7.44(j) to provide that the Retail Liquidity Identifier would also
be disseminated through the UTP Quote Data Feed, as applicable.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to
correct a typographical error in Rule 7.44(j) and replace
``Consolidation Quotation System'' with ``Consolidated Quotation
System.''
    \10\ The Exchange notes that this proposed change would align
Rule 7.44(j) with the comparable rule of its affiliated exchange,
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). NYSE Arca currently operates a
retail price improvement program that includes securities that trade
on that exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. See NYSE
Arca Rule 7.44-E(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subject to the effectiveness of this proposed rule change, the
Exchange will implement this change in the fourth quarter of 2022 and
announce the implementation date by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\12\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes expanding the Program's availability to all
securities traded on the Exchange would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by
enabling RPI Orders in all securities to participate in the Program and
receive potential price improvement. The Exchange believes that this
expansion of the Program would benefit retail investors by providing
increased opportunities for price improvement in all securities traded
on the Exchange, rather than limiting the Program to NYSE-listed
securities only. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change
would allow it to compete with other exchanges that operate retail
price improvement programs that are available to all securities traded
on such exchanges.\13\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
conforming change to Rule 7.44(j) would also remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free

and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest by updating Rule 7.44(j) to provide
for the dissemination of the Retail Liquidity Identifier for RPI Orders
on the UTP Quote Data Feed. The proposed change would ensure that the
Retail Liquidity Identifier would also be disseminated as appropriate
for RPI Orders in securities traded on the Exchange pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') Rule 11.24
(setting forth BYX's Retail Price Improvement Program, with Retail
Price Improvement Order defined in Rule 11.24(a)(3)); Nasdaq BX,
Inc. (``BX'') Rules 4702(b)(5)(A) (defining ``Retail Price Improving
Order'') and 4780 (setting forth BX's Retail Price Improvement
Program); Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'') Rule 11.232 (setting
forth IEX's Retail Price Improvement Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change could promote competition by permitting RPI Orders
in all securities traded on the Exchange, thereby supporting price
improvement opportunities for retail investors. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed expansion of the Program to include all
securities traded on the Exchange would promote competition between the
Exchange and other exchanges that offer retail price improvement
programs for which all securities traded on such exchanges are eligible
to participate.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2022-47 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-47. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-47 and should be submitted on
or before November 16, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23239 Filed 10-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2150-2151]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-11-000]

Reliability Technical Conference; Notice Inviting Post-Technical
Conference Comments

    On Thursday, September 30, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) staff convened its annual Commissioner-led
Reliability Technical Conference to discuss policy issues related to
the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address the questions raised below and, if they
wish, any other issues raised during the technical conference.
Commenters need not answer all of the questions, but commenters are
encouraged to organize responses using the numbering and order in the
below

questions. Commenters are also invited to reference material previously
filed in this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition or
replication of their previous comments. Comments must be submitted on
or before 45 days from the date of this Notice.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\1\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] 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, submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Lodie White (Technical Information), Office of Energy Reliability,
(202) 502-8453, [email protected]
Milena Yordanova (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
(202) 502-6194, [email protected]

    Dated: January 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00615 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39418-39420]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12946]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-492-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Application and
Establishing Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on June 2, 2023, Florida Gas Transmission Company,
LLC, (FGT) 1300 Main St., Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application
under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and part 157 and 284
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) requesting
the authorization to increase the certificated capacity by increasing
certain compression station from construct, install, modify, operate
and maintain its Louisiana Project located at St. Landry, East Baton
Rouge, and Washington Parishes, Louisiana and Perry County, Mississippi
which will provide an additional 100,000 million cubic feet per day of
firm transportation service back into FGT's Zone 2 and provide gas to
downstream customers from power generation and local distribution
companies.
    Specifically, FGT is requesting approval to (1) uprate two existing
natural gas-fired compressor turbine units (Units 7501 and 7502), each
from 6,500 horsepower (HP); to 7,700 HP at its Compressor station (CS)
7.5 in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana; (2) At CS (8), add process cooling
units to support the existing gas compressor units at FGT's existing
Mainline in East Baton Rouge Parish; (3) At CS 9, install one new 7,700
HP natural gas-fired turbine compressor unit on FGT's Mainline in
Washington Parish, Louisiana; (4) At CS 10, install one new 15,900 HP
natural gas-fired turbine compressor unit on FGT's Mainline in Perry
County, Mississippi; (5) The total estimated cost

of the project is approximately $74.9 million, all as more fully set
forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Registerthe Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Blair
Lichtenwalter, Senior Director, Certificates, Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC., 4700 1300 Main St. P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-
4967, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 3, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is July 3, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is July 3, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before July 3, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not serve
to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you
must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-492-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-483-000.
    To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    To file via any other method: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available

to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Blair
Lichtenwalter, Senior Director, Certificates, Florida Gas Transmission
Company, LLC., 4700 1300 Main St. P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-
4967, or by email at [email protected]. Any
subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant
and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for
parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on
FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: June 12, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12946 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6282-6283]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD09-3-000]

Compliance With Mandatory Reliability Standards; Guidance Order
on Compliance Audits Conducted by the Electric Reliability Organization
and Regional Entities

Issued January 15, 2009.

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff

    1. In this order, the Commission provides guidance on conducting
compliance audits to the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the certified Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO), and the eight Regional Entities to which NERC has delegated
responsibility for enforcing Commission-approved Reliability Standards
within the United States.
    2. NERC and Regional Entities conduct compliance audits of
registered entities subject to mandatory Reliability Standards approved
by the Commission. They conduct these audits pursuant to procedures
approved by the Commission under FPA sections 215(c)(2)(C)
(certification of the ERO) and 215(e)(4) (approval of delegation
agreements), which, among other things, require that the ERO and
Regional Entities provide fair and impartial procedures for enforcement
of reliability standards.\1\ This order provides guidance to the ERO
and Regional Entities with respect to implementation of Section 3.1 of
NERC's Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (CMEP), which the
Commission approved on April 19, 2007 pursuant to FPA sections
215(c)(2) and 215(e)(4).\2\ This guidance stems from Commission staff
observations of audits that NERC and the Regional Entities have
conducted into whether particular users, owners and operators of the
Bulk-Power System are complying with Reliability Standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)(2)(C) and 824o(e)(4) (2006).
    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,060, at P 41 (2007).
    \3\ The Commission disclosed these observation audits in the
2008 Report on Enforcement (Docket No. AD07-13-001) at 26 (issued
October 31, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. We require that NERC and Regional Entities ``base their
compliance audit processes in the U.S. on professional auditing
standards recognized in the U.S., such as Generally Accepted Accounting
Standards, Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, and
standards sanctioned by the Institute of Internal Auditors.'' \4\ We
allow flexibility for NERC and the Regional Entities to implement their
compliance audit programs in that they are to base their audit
processes on these auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 122 FERC ]
61,245, at P 42 n.29 (2008). NERC currently so provides in CMEP
section 3.1. The Commission further clarified the matter recently by
requiring that in CMEP section 3.1, NERC substitute the term
``Generally Accepted Auditing Standards'' for ``Generally Accepted
Accounting Standards.'' North American Electric Reliability Corp.,
125 FERC ] 61,330, at P 14 n.11 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Nevertheless, our staff has observed that additional consistency
in compliance audit processes among NERC and the Regional Entities
within the United States would be beneficial. We expect NERC and
Regional Entities to implement the following guidance, as appropriate,
in ongoing compliance audits and in all compliance audits that commence
on or after the date of this order.

A. Audit Team Leadership and Training

    5. In order to resolve possible perceptions that a Regional
Entity's compliance staff is not sufficiently independent from the
audited entity, such as the Regional Entity itself or its affiliate,
NERC staff sometimes leads compliance audit teams in which Regional
Entity staff participates. This is intended to assess compliance in an
unbiased or professional manner.\5\ In these audits, Regional Entity
staff should serve as subject matter experts, rather than lead the
audit or advise on its conduct or scope. NERC staff should control the
scope and conduct of a NERC-led audit and refrain from seeking advice
from or involving Regional Entity staff on the direction or findings of
the audit. NERC and Regional Entity staff should assume these roles
from the beginning of the pre-audit stage of such a NERC-led audit
until the completion of the final audit report.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, NERC staff will lead any audit team conducting
a compliance audit of the reliability coordinator function of the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), a Regional Entity.
North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,059, at P
35, 39 (2007).
    \6\ This guidance does not apply to compliance audits that NERC
leads for other reasons, such as when NERC personnel have
specialized technical knowledge of particular standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. CMEP section 3.1.5 requires that for all compliance audits
conducted after January 1, 2008, each audit team member must
successfully complete all NERC or NERC-approved Regional Entity auditor
training applicable to the audit. We suggest that NERC and Regional
Entities ensure that this audit training include skills in
interviewing, choosing samples of matters to be audited, and evaluating
evidence.

B. Pre-Audit Procedures

    7. We suggest that NERC, in the context of developing, reviewing
and updating its pre-audit questionnaires, ensure that audit team
requests for information and documents about specific matters are as
consistent as possible among the Regional Entities.\7\ For organizing
requests for data and information, all compliance audit teams should
use a database consisting of a spreadsheet that serves as a checklist
for all requirements of Reliability Standards that are to be audited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Cf. Guidance on Filing Reliability Notices of Penalty, 124
FERC ] 61,015, at P 21 (2008) (Notice of Penalty Guidance Order)
(observing that the format and content of compliance staff forms and
questionnaires directly influence the quality and relevance of the
information and documentation elicited in response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Compliance audit teams should request that registered entities:
(1) organize responses to data requests and other audit evidence into
the format that the audit team will use to match evidence to compliance
with particular requirements; and (2) cross-reference the information
provided to the audit team to specific requirements of the Reliability
Standards being audited. Registered entities' responses should label
all information that is responsive to a particular audit team request
relating to specific requirements.
    9. Each audit team should allot sufficient time to complete its
review of responses to pre-audit data requests before beginning site
visits or similar efforts. During pre-audit preparation, audit teams
should identify and examine any mitigation plans and associated
documentation pertaining to standard requirements to be audited,
including assessing, as relevant, whether mitigation plan milestones
have been met, mitigation plans have been completed in a timely manner
and whether completion of a mitigation plan was sufficient to bring the
registered entity into compliance with applicable requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We recently highlighted the importance of ascertaining
whether a mitigation plan has been completed on time, including
adequate review of documentation or self-certifications submitted by
a registered entity, so as to bring the registered entity into
compliance with applicable requirements. Notice of Penalty Guidance
Order at P 35-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Procedures During the Compliance Audit

    10. A compliance audit should ascertain that the registered entity
is in compliance with a requirement or that there is evidence that a
violation of the

requirement has occurred. A compliance audit team should not consider
or discuss whether a monetary penalty or some other sanction would be
appropriate if the Regional Entity finds that the registered entity has
violated the requirement. Nor should a compliance audit team base its
decision regarding whether evidence of a violation exists upon the
resources or time needed for litigation or settlement of a related
notice of alleged violation.\9\ The Commission would look with disfavor
on the conclusions of a compliance audit that is based in any way on
these considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This separation of roles is consistent with our own staff's
practice. See 2008 Report on Enforcement at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. We emphasize that NERC and Regional Entities need to be as
consistent as possible about the level of evidence or documentation
that is needed to demonstrate compliance for particular requirements.
    12. A compliance audit conducted by NERC or a Regional Entity
should include an assessment of the registered entity's Reliability
Standards compliance program. We suggest that NERC and the Regional
Entities discuss how NERC's audit guidelines and audit data requests
and questionnaires could better elicit information on the factors
discussed in our recent Policy Statement on Compliance.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Compliance with Statutes, Regulations, and Orders, 125 FERC
] 61,058 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. If an audit team learns about a situation that does not appear
to involve a current or ongoing violation of a Reliability Standard
requirement, but instead represents an area of concern that could
become a violation, we expect the team to notify the registered entity
of the situation, discuss it with the entity, and document such
discussions in the compliance audit report. We remind audit teams that
they are expected to fully test compliance with any non-actively
monitored standard if the teams find evidence during the audit of non-
compliance with such a standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NERC Rule of Procedure 401.6 and CMEP section 3.1.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. We believe implementation of this guidance will improve the
consistency of compliance audits relating to Reliability Standards and
result in greater compliance with them.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2527 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

Chemical: Myclobutanil

PC Code: 128857

DP Barcode: D336254

September 26, 2007

DRINKING WATER EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS

SUBJECT:	Drinking Water Exposure Concentrations for proposed new myclobutanil uses on fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8), leafy vegetables (Crop Subgroup 4), and tropical fruits. (Tolerance Petitions 6E7138 and 3E6562).

 TO:		Daniel Rosenblatt, RIMUERB

		William Cutchin, RIMUERB

		John Redden, RIMUERB

		Registration Division (7505P)

FROM:	James K. Wolf, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist

		Environmental Risk Branch 3

		Environmental Fate and Effects Branch (7507P)

THRU:	James Hetrick, Ph.D. Senior Scientist

		Environmental Risk Branch 3

		Environmental Fate and Effects Branch (7507P)

		Karen Whitby, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch 3

		Environmental Fate and Effects Branch (7507P)

Executive Summary

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has prepared a drinking water assessment for several proposed new uses on fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8), leafy vegetables (Crop Subgroup 4), and tropical fruits for the fungicide myclobutanil (Rally® (No. 62719-410)  and Nova® (EPA Reg. 62719-411).

, β-4-chlorophenyl-β-cyano-γ-(1H-1,2,4-triazole)-butyric acid, unknown, or non-extractable residues.  Myclobutanil is stable to hydrolysis and to photolysis in water.

The screening level surface and ground water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for myclobutanil in drinking water are calculated using Tier I models of FIRST (version 1.1.0) and SCI-GROW (version 2.3) (Table 1).

Table 1. Maximum Tier I myclobutanil EDWCs for drinking water assessment based on aerial application of myclobutanil for the proposed new tropical fruit use (in bold) compared to the previously assessed hop use.

Use	Maximum Surface water EDWC (µg/L)	Maximum Ground water

Acute/Chronic EDWC (µg/L)

	Acute Value	Chronic/Cancer Value

	Tropical Fruit	120.1 	46.3	2.83

Hop Use (D289700, D290167)	333	86	3.2

.

The EDWC values for myclobutanil represent upper-bound estimates of concentrations that might be found in surface water and ground water due to the proposed new use of the chemical on tropical fruits.  This use represents the highest proposed new use rate (8 applications at 0.25 lb a.i./A; total 2.0 lb a.i./A/year) and therefore should result in the highest exposure concentrations.  EFED emphasizes that this is a Tier I screening-level analysis, and should there be a need, by HED, additional refinements can be made.  The EDWC values are less than previously assessed for the hop use which had higher application rates (0.65 lb a.i./A, 15 applications per year, and 9.75 lb a.i./A/year) (D289700, D290167).

Myclobutanil has been detected in ambient surface water and ground water in samples collected for the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA, 2007).  Twenty percent (20.4%) of 2647 surface water samples had detectable levels of myclobutanil.  The maximum peak concentration was 0.51µg/L and the maximum average concentration is 0.35µg/L.  The minimum reporting limit (MRL) varied from 0.00022 to 0.25 µg/L.  In NAWQA, less than 1% (3 wells) of 2061 wells had detectable levels of myclobutanil with MRLs ranging from 0.0022 to 0.033 µg/L.  These monitoring studies were not specifically conducted for myclobutanil.  Additionally, it is generally not included in many monitoring studies.   Myclobutanil was detected in a limited number of samples collected at different at drinking water source facilities.  When detections occurred, 1- to 2 percent of the samples contained low levels of myclobutanil.  The maximum concentration was of 0.019 µg/L.

The Office of Pesticide Program’s Health Effects Division (HED) has conducted aggregate human health risk assessments for 1,2,4-triazole and triazole conjugates (triazole alanine and triazole acetic acid) derived from conazole fungicides (D322215, D334221).  1,2,4-Triazole and its conjugates are common metabolites to the class of compounds know as the triazoles (a.k.a. triazole-derivative fungicides, T-D fungicides, conazoles).  These compounds all have a triazole ring with nitrogen atoms at the 1, 2, and 4 positions.  The drinking water portion of the triazole residues assessment (D320682) considered application rates that were higher than those proposed for the new uses of myclobutanil.  The maximum use rate was for turf (6 applications at 1.73 lb a.i/A; total 10.38 lb a.i./A/year).  The exposure from triazole and its metabolites for the proposed new myclobutanil uses would be less than previously considered (D320682, D322215).

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

This Tier I drinking water assessment uses modeling and available monitoring data to provide estimates of surface water and ground water concentrations of myclobutanil residues in drinking water source water (pre-treatment) resulting from the proposed new uses of myclobutanil on vulnerable use sites.  Primary routes of transport to source water include runoff, leaching, and spray drift.  The screening level estimates of the drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for myclobutanil were obtained with the Tier I surface (FIRST) and ground water (SCI-GROW) models.  The assessment was conducted as a national assessment using the high-end exposure conditions represented by the FIRST and SCI-GROW models and the maximum application rates.

III. ANALYSIS

Use Characterization

The myclobutanil labels considered in this assessment include RALLY® 40 WSP (EPA Reg. No. 62719-410) and NOVA® 40 W and RALLY® 40 W (EPA Reg. No. 62719-411).  Myclobutanil will be used to control powdery mildew on Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8), leafy vegetables (Crop Subgroup 4A), artichokes, and disease in tropical fruits.  The proposed methods of myclobutanil application are through ground and aerial spray as well as sprinkler irrigation (chemigation).

The rates proposed for each crop (crop group) are given in Table 2.  The individual application rates range from 0.10 to 0.25 lb a.i./A.  The number of applications range from 4 to 8; the minimum reapplication interval ranges from 10 to 14 days.   The maximum proposed rate is for tropical fruit is 0.25 lb a.i./A per application with a maximum seasonal application rate of 2.0 lb a.i./A with a minimum reapplication interval of 14 days.  The maximum application rate and number of applications is proposed for the tropical fruit use.

Table 2. Proposed new uses and use patterns of myclobutanil (PC 128857 D336254, D336613)

Supplemental Product Label	Reg. No.	Use Restriction	New Use – Crop Groups, crops	Max # Appl. /Interval	Rate/Season1 Rate

Petition 6E7138

Rally 40 WSP	62719-410	None	Tropical fruits2	 8/14	0.25/2.0

Rally 40 WSP	62719-410	None	Okra	4/10 to 14	0.125/0.50

Rally 40 WSP	62719-410	None	Crop Group 83; Pepper, Eggplant	4/10 to 14 0.125/0.50

Rally 40 WSP	62719-410	None	Artichoke	6/14	0.10/0.60

Rally 40 WSP	62719-410	None	Crop subgroup 4A4 Head & Leaf lettuce; FL, - 3 crops/year1	4/14

31 x 4/14	0.125/0.50

0.125/1.50

Nova 40 W	62719-411	Not for use in5	Okra	4/10 to 14	0.125/0.50

Nova 40 W	62719-411	Not for use in5	Crop Group 83; Pepper, Eggplant	4/10 to 14	0.125/0.50

	Petition 3E6562

Rally 40 W

[Product label]	62719-411	For use only in6	 Tropical fruits2	 8/14 0.25/2.0

1  Number of seasons per year is not defined; as many as 3 crops from the same ground in Florida (communication B. Madden, 08-24-07).

2 Tropical fruits; Black Sapote, Canistel, Mamey Sapote, Mango, Papaya Sapodilla, and Star Apple

3  Crop group 8 Fruiting vegetables  – Peppers and Egg Plant  [6E7138], except tomatoes; leafy vegetables

4  Crop subgroup 4A, Leafy vegetables. except tropical fruits, spinach; artichoke, cilantro, and okra. (Amaranch, Arugula, chervil, garland, chrysanthemum, corn salad, garden cress, upland crass, dandelion, dock, endive, lettuce, orach, parsley, garden purslane, and winter purslane, radicchio, and Cilantro).

5 Not for use in AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY

6  For use only in AK, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY.

Label Uncertainty

The labels do not define whether “per season” means that only one crop may be grown from a given field in a year (or more than 1 crop cycle per year is possible which infers multiple seasons or crops per year).  According to IR-4 sources, as many as three crops of lettuce may be grown from the same ground per year in Florida (communication from B. Madden, 08-24-08).  The remaining uses assume only 1 application per year.

The geographic restrictions on the NOVA® 40 W and RALLY® 40 W labels does not appear to agree with the proposed new uses.  The master Rally 40 W label restricts its use to AK, ID, MT, NV,OR, UT, WA, and WY and the master Nova 40 W label precludes its use in 11 states, including AZ, CA, and HI (D336254).

The draft Rally 40 WSP labels restricts its use to AZ, CA, and HI and the Nova 40 W label precludes its use in 11 states, including AZ, CA, and HI, yet the proposed new use is tropical fruit (D336613).  The confusion in the labs should be addressed.

Mode of Action

Myclobutanil is a triazole fungicide in the conazole class of fungicides which is a systemic fungicide used to control powdery mildew on a number of crops.  Myclobutanil appears to be a specific inhibitor of sterol 14-demethylase, which disrupts the ergosterol biosynthesis pathway which is vital to fungal cell wall formation.  It is classified as a demethylation inhibitor (DMI) fungicide.

Fate and Transport Characterization

Our understanding of the environmental fate and transport properties of myclobutanil is based on a sparse data set.  Available environmental fate parameters, including the chemical structure of myclobutanil, are listed in Table 3.  These data are based on studies that may not be acceptable under current classification standards as they were conducted prior to 1986 before Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards (40 CFR 160) and data requirements for registration (40 CFR 158) were promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations.  Additionally, the aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism study requirements have not been met by the registrant.  Therefore, the Agency assumes that the residues of concern are persistent for the exposure assessment.  The previously submitted studies have not been re-reviewed, although rate of degradation (decline) of myclobutanil in the aerobic soil metabolism study was re-estimated.

Due to its persistence and mobility, the primary routes of dissipation are through leaching, runoff, and spray drift.  Myclobutanil is stable to hydrolysis and to photolysis.

Myclobutanil dissipation is controlled by microbial-mediated transformations.  The major degradation products observed in the aerobic soil metabolism (ASM) studies were 1,2,4-triazole (maximum 18%), CO2, a polar degradate (β-4-chlorophenyl-β-cyano-γ-(1H-1,2,4-triazole)-butyric acid; maximum 9 %), and unextractable residues.  At the conclusion of the 367 day ASM study, 29 to 33 percent of the applied radioactivity remained as parent myclobutanil and 13 percent was identified as 1,2,4-triazole.

Myclobutanil was moderately persistent to persistent (DT50 > 70 days) in aerobic soils and persistent in anaerobic soils.  Myclobutanil degradation does not appear to follow a first order  kinetics based upon visual inspection, but tended to follow a “hockey stick” degradation pattern (a rapid initial decline followed by a slower decline), thus the first-order half-life was does not accurately describe the decline of myclobutanil residues.  The observed (visible inspection) aerobic metabolism DT50 for myclobutanil value ranged between 75 and 90.   The DT90 for myclobutanil was not reached during the course of the study (367 days).  Terrestrial field dissipation half-life values ranged from 92 to 292 days.  Myclobutanil photo-degrades with a half-life of approximately 143 days on soil.  Thus, myclobutanil residues are persistent.  The potential for accumulation in soil is possible due to the persistence, especially when there are multiple applications.  Further discussion is provided in Appendix 1.

Myclobutanil is mobile as indicated by the Freundlich Kads values (from 1.46 to 9.77 mL/g) (Appendix 1, Table 3).  The lowest non-sand value is 2.39 mL/g.  Desorption coefficients were generally less than the sorption coefficients.  The sorption is not strongly correlated to soil organic carbon (matter), thus Koc is not a good measure of mobility for modeling.

Because log Kows for parent and degradation products are low (log Kow= 2.94), myclobutanil residues are not expected to bioaccumulate (Acc # 264484).

Table 3. Selected Fate and Transport data for Myclobutanil.

Parameter	Input Value and Unit	Source

Chemical Formula

Myclobutanil:  alpha-butyl-alpha (4-chlorophenyl)-1H-1,2-triazole-1-propane-nitrile

Chemical Structure:

	Myclobutanil

Molecular Weight

288.8 g/ mol	 DP Barcode D289700 (6/25/03)

Solubility in water (pH 7, 20oC)	 142 mg/L 	DP Barcode D289700 (6/25/03)

161-1 Hydrolysis at pH 5,7, and 9	Stable	MRID 001416-79

161-2 Aqueous photolysis (t1/2)	Stable	MRID # 406415-01, 403198-01, 405288-01

161-3 Soil Photolysis	143 days	Acc# 266121, 214084 (D197478)

Myclobutanil

163-1 Partition Coefficient, Kads a	1.46, 2.39, 4.44, 7.08, 9.77 mL/g MRID#  141602

162-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism (T½)b                                                                 	198, 224 days	MRID# 164561

162-3 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism	Assume Stable, No appreciable degradation in 62 days	DP Barcode D289700 (6/25/03)

162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 	No Data Submitted

	162-4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism	No Data Submitted

	164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation	92 to 292 days	MRID # 164563

a  Kocs are presented in Appendix 1, Tables 3.

b  (T½) – Myclobutanil decline does not follow first-order kinetics, therefore the decay rate is not a half-life.  Estimate of DT50 dependant upon method used to determine value.

Drinking Water Exposure

Modeling

EFED Tier I models were used to estimate the drinking water exposure for use in the dietary risk assessment of myclobutanil.  The following is a description of the models used, the selection of the model input parameters, and a characterization of the output from these simulations.

Surface Water:  The FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool, Version 1.1.0) model by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) of the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) was used to assess potential for contamination of surface drinking water sources from the proposed myclobutanil use.

FIRST is a single-event model (one runoff event), but can account for spray drift from multiple applications.  FIRST is hardwired to represent the Index Reservoir, a standard water body used by the Office of Pesticide Programs to assess drinking water exposure (Office of Pesticide Programs, 2002).  It is based on a real reservoir, Shipman City Lake in Illinois, which is known to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination. The single runoff event moves a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide into the reservoir.  This amount can be reduced due to degradation on the field and the effects of binding to soil in the field.  FIRST also uses a Percent Cropped Area (PCA) factor to adjust for the area within the watershed that is planted to the modeled crop.  The national default PCA of 0.87 was applied in this assessment.

Ground Water:  Myclobutanil concentrations in ground water were estimated by the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW v2.3, Jul. 29, 2003) model.  SCI-GROW is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in groundwater used as drinking water.  SCI-GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to ground water concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable.  Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90-day average high concentrations from Prospective Ground Water studies.  The RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water partition coefficient.  The output of SCI-GROW represents the concentrations myclobutanil residues that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils.

Further information on these models can be found at the EFED water model website at http://   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/html"  www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/html .

Input Parameters

Model input parameters were estimated from the fate and transport properties given Table 3 and the other default values are prepared or selected as recommended by EFED Input Guidance document (USEPA, 2002).  Pesticide usage information was obtained from the draft labels.  The inputs values used in FIRST and SCI-GROW models are summarized in Table 4.

The models currently used by EFED, assume that the degradation follow first order kinetics, and therefore require an estimate of the half-life.  Myclobutanil degradation, however, is best described using a hockey stick degradation pattern.  This type of degradation pattern cannot be modeled using first-order kinetics.

The previously reported half-lives for myclobutanil cite a range of between 61 and 71 days (D289700), which described the decline reasonably well for the first 90 days of the study, but grossly overestimates the remaining decline.  The method used to estimate these half-lives was not stated, but it appears that only the first 90 (or less) days of a 367 day study were used.   EFED reevaluated the data and re-estimated the decline rate constants utilizing all the data for myclobutanil (see discussion in Appendix 1 and Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2).

The linear regression of the log-normal transformed myclobutanil radioactivity provided the best estimate of the measured residues (as percent of applied radioactivity) versus time (e.g., 29 to 33% myclobutanil) remaining at 367 days.  The study was not conducted long enough to observe a DT75 or DT90.  The 90-percent upper bound of the mean (n=2) aerobic soil metabolism half-life for myclobutanil was estimated to be 251 days.  Additionally, the models currently used by EFED were not developed for a persistent chemical where accumulation might occur.

Analysis of the sorption data (Appendix 1, Tables 3) indicate sorption is not significantly correlated with organic matter (carbon) (EAB# 6087. 03/05/86).  Therefore, lowest non-sand Freundlich Kads was used to estimate the EDWCs for myclobutanil (USEPA, 2002).

The aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life was assumed to be twice that of the aerobic soil metabolism half-life estimated as a model input (USEPA, 2002).

Table 4.  Input parameters for the Tier I FIRST and SCI-GROW models used in  Myclobutanil Drinking Water Assessment

Input 	Value	Rationale

Application rate/number/interval	0.25 lb a.i.A-1 /8/14 days	Maximum proposed label use

Incorporation depth	0	USEPA, 2002

Hydrolysis	0 (stable)	USEPA, 2002

Aquatic Photodegradation	0 (stable)	USEPA, 2002

Solubility	142.0 mg/L	 USEPA, 2002

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

               Myclobutanil

251 days

	= Upper 90th bound on mean

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

              Myclobutanil

Estimated as 502 days

= 2 x ASM per USEPA, 2002

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 	0 Stable	= Assumed stable to be conservative

Mobility (Freundlich Kads)

Myclobutanil

2.39 mL/g	For FIRST

= Lowest non-sand value

Mobility (Koc) Myclobutanil		224 	For SCI-GROW1

= Lowest Koc

Aerial Spray Drift	0.16 (fraction)	USEPA, 2002

Wetted In	No	Label

PCA (Percent Crop Area)	0.87 (fraction)	USEPA, 2002

1 SCI-GROW input specifies a Koc rather than Kads as an input value.

Modeling Results

EFED estimated the drinking water exposure concentrations for myclobutanil.

As expected, the maximum use rate (8 applications at 0.25 lb a.i/A, 14 day reapplication interval) produced the highest EDWCs (Table 5).  It is recommend that the EDWCs (surface water peak = 120 µg/L, chronic = 46 µg/L, and acute and chronic for ground water =2.8 µg/L) for the proposed tropical fruit use of myclobutanil be used for the human health exposure assessment.  Model input/outputs for these estimates are attached in Appendix 2.

Table 5.  Tier I EDWCs for myclobutanil from use on tropical fruits.

Chemical	Application	Peak Day (Acute)	Annual Average (Chronic)

Surface Water	 Rate 	   Number  	Interval 	Concentration (µg/L)

Myclobutanil	0.25 (lb a.i./A)	8	14 days	120.1	46.3

Ground Water

	Myclobutanil	0.25 (lb a.i./A)	8	Not Used	2.83	2.83

Monitoring

Three monitoring studies were found which included myclobutanil.  Two studies were located at drinking water sources (treatment facilities), finished (and raw water) samples were analyzed.  The monitoring studies were not targeted to myclobutanil use areas.  Myclobutanil has also been included in the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) Program.  Myclobutanil monitoring data are summarized in Tables 6 through 9.

USDA, Pesticide Data Program (PDP).

The PDP is a program implemented by the USDA in 1991 to test commodities in the U.S. food supply for pesticide residues (2001).  Sampling of finished drinking water was added until 2001. The PDP is a partner ship with cooperation State Agencies responsible for sample collection and analysis of fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, grain, grain products, milk and dairy products, beef, pork, drinking water, and bottle water.  Ten to twelve states participate in PDP program.  In 2005, the twelve states were CA, CO, FL, MD, MI, MN, MT, NY, OH, TX, WA, and WI

Paired samples of raw (untreated) intake and disinfected finished (treated) water were collected for analysis by the PDP in 2004 and 2005.  Treated water samples were collected after the untreated samples at a time interval with the hydraulic residence time.  The frequency of   myclobutanil detections was 2 percent for the treated water and 1 percent for the untreated water (Table 6) in the 2005 samples.  There were no detections in any of the other years.  Triazoles and it conjugates were detected in several food commodities, but not in water samples in the PDP study.

Table 6.  Distribution of myclobutanil and 1,2,4-triazole residues in drinking water in the USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) (USDA, 2001 - 2006).

Myclobutanil	No. of Samples	No. of Detects

(year)	% samples with detection	Range of Detections1 (µg/L)	Range of LODs (µg/L)

Finished (treated)	288	0 (2001)	0	0	0.0113-0.10

Finished (treated)	582	0 (2002)	0	0	0.005-0.020

Finished (treated)	782	0 (2003)	0	0	0.005-0.020

Finished (treated)	380	0 (2004)	0	0	0.0013 – 0.0113

Unfinished (untreated)	381	0 (2004)	0	0	0.0013 – 0.0113

Finished (treated)	230	4 (2005)	1.7	0.019	0.0050 – 0.0113

Unfinished (untreated)	232	2 (2005)	0.9	0.019	0.0050 – 0.0113

1 Only one distinct detected concentration or LOD value was reported for the pair.

Reservoir Pilot Monitoring Program (USGS, 2001).  Myclobutanil was included in a study that monitored a number of water supply reservoirs and finished water (USGS, 2001).  Residues were detected, at low concentrations, about 1 percent of 317 samples, in raw water with no detections in the finished water (Table 7). The degradation products were not included.

Table 7.  Myclobutanil results from the summary of analysis of moderate-use pesticides and degradates in water samples from water supply intakes and finished-supply taps in Reservoir Pilot Monitoring Program. (USGS, 2001).

	No. of Samples	No. of Detections

(Quantifiable No. of Detections)	Frequency of Detection

(%)	Maximum Detection

(µg/L)	Method Reporting Level

(µg/L)

Raw Water	317	3 (2)	0.9	0.015	0.008

Finished Water	221	0	0	0	0.008

National Water Quality Analysis Program (NAQWA)(USGS, 2007)

Surface Water Analysis:  Myclobutanil is detected in ambient surface water (Table 8) (Appendix 3).  The detection frequency is 20.4 % (541/2647).  The maximum daily myclobutanil concentration 0.507 μg/L is for a sampling site (USGS Sampling Station # 2335870) in Cobb County, GA.   Land use in the Cobb County, GA watershed is designated as urban.  The maximum average myclobutanil concentration 0.347 μg/L is for a sampling site (USGS Sampling Station #<PHONE_NUMBER>393401) in Merced County, CA.  The minimum reporting limit (MRL) varies from 0.0022 to 0.25 μg/L with a median MRL of 0.008 μg/L.

Table 8.  Distribution of Myclobutanil Concentrations in USGS NAWQA Surface Water Monitoring Data  Monitoring Data

Exposure Value

	Detects

(%)	Percentile

Max	99.9	99	95	90	80	70	60	50

Peak	20.4	0.507	0.486	0.344	0.074	0.033	0.033	0.033	0.010	0.008

Average

0.347	0.320	0.149	0.033	0.020	0.014	0.011	0.008	0.008

μg/L is for a well (USGS Sampling Station #<PHONE_NUMBER>74101) in Harris County, TX.   Land use in the Harris County recharge zone is designated as urban.  The minimum reporting limit (MRL) varies from 0.0022 to 0.033 μg/L with a median MRL of 0.008 μg/L.

Table 9: Distribution of Myclobutanil Concentrations in USGS NAWQA Ground Water Monitoring Data  Monitoring Data

Station ID	Concentration

(μg/L)	Well Description

295358095374101	0.0338	Harris County, TX; Well Depth 33.5 ft: Urban Land Use

322237086112101	0.0208	Montgomery County, AL; Well Depth  31.5 ft; Urban Land Use

465509119371501	0.0079	Grant County, Washington; Well Depth 15 ft; Ag Land Use

REFERENCES

Burns, L. A.  2002.  EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System) Version 2.98.04.  Environmental Research Laboratory.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, GA.

Carsel et al.  1997.  PRZM (Pesticide Root  Zone Model) Version 3.12.  Environmental Research Laboratory.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, GA.

FIRST, 2005. FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tier I A Screening Model estimate Pesticide concentrations in Drinking Water. Version 1.1.0, December 12, 2005, Arlington, VA.

SCI-GROW, 2001. SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration In Ground Water).(version 2.2; November 1, 2001). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA

USDA.  2001 to 2006.  Pesticide Data Program (PDP). Annual Summary Calendar, Year 2005. USDA-AMS-S&T-Monitoring Programs Office.  Manassas, VA.   HYPERLINK "http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/Index.htm"  http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/Index.htm

USEPA, 2002.  Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. Version II February 28, 2002.     HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm "  http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm .   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.  Arlington, VA.

USGS. 2001.  J. Bloomquist, J. Denis, J. Cowles, J. Hetrick, R. Jones, and N. Birchfield. Pesticides in Selected Water-Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 1999-2000: Summary of Results from a Pilot Monitoring Program. Open File Report 01-456

USGS. 2007. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.  Data-warehouse      HYPERLINK "http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.html"  http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.html

 Appendix 1. Additional Environmental Fate Discussion

The method used to determine the aerobic soil metabolism (MRID 164561) half-lives reported in earlier DERs could not be replicated.  The pattern of decline appears to fit the common degradation pattern termed the “hockey stick”.  An analysis of degradation kinetics was conducted to derive the best description of the measured decline curves in aerobic soil metabolism studies.   The entire data set (0 to 367 days) and a portion of the data (0 to 90 days) were analyzed using linear regression of the ln-transformed data and non-linear regression of the untransformed data.

The following equations and assumptions were made (based upon搠慲瑦朠極慤据敢湩敤敶潬数祢琠敨䘠瑡 敔档吠慥Ɑ䔠正汥⼱〲㜰മ䔍ⁱ⸱†搠⽃瑤㴠ⴠ䍫൮ ††उ晩渠ㄽ桴湥氠⡮ぃ䌯
‽欭⁴昨物瑳漠摲牥攠 畱瑡潩⥮

    		if n ≠ 1 then

      Eq. 2.  (1/(n-1))*((1/Cn-1) – (1/C0n-1)) = -kt

	C =((n-1)*k*t + (1/co^(n-1)))^(-1/(n-1)); co = Co/100

The rings of myclobutanil, triazole and chlorophenyl rings were labeled [14C), thus, the decline (of radioactivity) of myclobutanil was measured by each ring.  The formation and decline of 1,2,4-triazole could also be tracked with the triazole ring.

Assuming first-order kinetics (eq. 1) a half-life (T½) was calculated using linear regression on the ln-transformed concentration versus time (time = 0 to 90 days or time = 0 to 367) and a DT50 was calculated using non-liner regression (the Levenberg-Marquardt least squares method for curve fitting) of concentration versus time (time = 0 to 90 days or time = 0 to 367).  The decay rate (k, or slope) and R2 are summarized in Appendix 2, Table 1.

The second equation (Eq 2.) result using all the data (0 to 367 days) fit the data points (Levenberg-Marquardt least squares), but was not a first order.

Appendix 1, Table 1.  Summary of regression method, time, decay rate, coefficient of determination (R2), intercept, and reaction order.

Parent (myclobutanil)

Regression

Time (days)	k	R2	n

Linear 	lnc = lnCo exp (-kt)	90	0.0096a

0.0077b	0.99

0.97	1

1

Linear

367	0.0035

0.0031	0.81

0.82	1

1

Nonlinear	C=CoExp(-kt)	90	0.10

0.0091	0.99

0.95	1

1

367

	0.0067

0.0058	0.83

0.77	1

1

Nonlinear-Nst order	Cc	367	0.01676	0.98	n = 2.929

co = 1.012

Myclobutanil + 1,2,4-triazole

 Regression	lnc = lnCo exp (-kt) 	Time (days)

	Linear

90	0.0058a	0.96	1

Linear

367	0.0022	0.85	1

Nonlinear	C=CoExp(-kt)	90	0.0069	0.92	1

Nonlinear

367	0.0037	0.68	1

Nonlinear-Nst order	Cc	367	0.01434	0.978	n = 4.789

co = 0.978

a Triazole ring labeled  will include 1,2,4-triazole.

b Chlorophenyl ring label.(1,2,4-triazole not label)

cC =((n-1)*k*t + (1/co^(n-1)))^(-1/(n-1)); co = Co/100

Appendix 1, Table 2 summarizes the distribution of measured radioactivity, and the estimated half-life or DT50, DT75, and 367 days (end of study).  The rate constant (k /day) and coefficient of determination (R2) is also shown.  From a statistical stand point (the linear and nonlinear methods) were significant (slopes) and the R2 were fair to good, and therefore, acceptable.  But in reality the linear or nonlinear methods did not fit the data very well.  Either the method it fit the data well at times less than 90 days, but not at day 367 or more, or it fit at both ends, but not in the middle.

The non-linear, n-order curve fitting equation (eq. 2) fit the data also exactly.  Unfortunately, it is not a first-order equation.

In summary, neither the first-order linear regression nor nonlinear regression (curve fitting) gives totally satisfactory results.  When only part of the data is used the initial decline can be fit quite well, but the later data is underestimated.  Using all the data, over estimated the half-life (or DT50), but under estimated the DT70 or DT90.  The first-order linear regression (transform data), using all the data, was the only method that gave a reasonable estimate of the residue remaining at the end of the study (367).  Neither DT75 or DT90 were reached in the study, the residues remaining at day 367 was used to evaluate the results.  This was selected because it was the most conservative as it fit the data best at both the beginning and end of the study.  This would result in a conservative estimate of myclobutanil concentrations in water.

Appendix 1, Table 2.  Summary of half-lives, DT50, DT75, DT90, and decay rate of myclobutanil and myclobutanil + 1,2,4 triazole estimated by linear and non-linear regression.

	Half-life or DT50	DT75	DT90	% Radioactivity

  at 367 days	Rate constant	Coefficient of Determination

PARENT ONLY	50% decline	 75% decline	90% decline

	Triazole Label Position	Time (days)

Days-1	 R2

Observed Mycobutanil 	75	>365	>365	29

Liner Regression

(t <100 days)	72.2	144	239	3.0	0.0096	0.99

Linear Regression (all)	198.0	396	657	27.9	0.0035	0.81

Nonlinear 1st order

(t <100 days)	69.3	138	230	2.6	0.010	0.99

Nonlinear 1st order	103.5	206	343	8.7	0.0067	0.83

Nonlinear nst order	87.6	400	2600	26.7	0.0167	0.98

Observed

Chlorophenyl Label 	90	>365	>365	33

Liner Regression

(t <100 days)	90	180	299	6.0	0.0077	0.97

Linear Regression (all)	224	447	742	32.3	0.0031	0.82

Nonlinear 1st order

(t<100 days)	76	152	253	3.6	0.0091	0.95

Nonlinear 1st order	113	237	354	11.6	0.0059	0.77

Nonlinear nst order	103	630	>1000	31.2	0.0164	0.98

PARENT + DEGRADATE

Observed Myclobutanil + 1,2,4 triazole	220	>365	>365	42

Liner Regression

(t <100 days)	119.5	239	397	12.0	0.0058	0.96

Linear Regression (all)	315.1	630	1047	44.8	0.0022	0.85

Nonlinear 1st order

(t<100 days)	100.5	201	334	8.1	0.0069	0.92

Nonlinear 1st order	186.3	372	619	25.9	0.0037	0.68

Nonlinear nst order	235.2

44.85	0.0144	0.98

Adsorption/Desorption Data Summary

The sorption and desorption data for myclobutanil are summarized in Appendix 1, Table 3.

Appendix 1, Table 3 Textural class, Organic Matter, Freundlich Kads, Koc, and Desorption (MRID # 141682).

Myclobutanil

	 	MRID  141602	Texture Class	OM%	Kads mL/g 	Koc1 ml/gsoil carbon	Kdes

	Clay	0.44	2.39	936	0.588

	Sand	0.95	1.46	265	0.468

	Silty loam	2.05	7.08	595	4.178

	Sandy loam	2.9	9.77	581	4.082

	Clay loam	3.42	4.44	224	1.186

1Koc = (Kd/(%OM/1.724)) * 100 where Kads is assumed to equal to Kd and OC% = OM%/1.724

APPENDIX 2.  FIRST and SCI-GROW OUTPUTS

Tropical Fruit

   RUN No.   1 FOR myclobutanil     ON   tropical fruit  * INPUT VALUES *

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

   RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL   APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

    ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL     Kd   (PPM )    (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

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

   .250(  1.754)   8  14       2.4  142.0   AERIAL(16.0)  87.0      .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

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

    251.00        2          N/A       .00-     .00   502.00    502.00

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

            120.095                     46.301

	OKRA

   RUN No.   1 FOR myclobutanil     ON   okra          * INPUT VALUES *

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

   RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL   APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

    ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL     Kd   (PPM )    (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

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

   .125(   .480)   4  10       2.4  142.0   AERIAL(16.0)  87.0      .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

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

    251.00        2          N/A       .00-     .00   502.00    502.00

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

             32.711                     12.585

LETTUCE

   RUN No.   1 FOR myclobutanil     ON   lettuce       * INPUT VALUES *

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

   RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL   APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

    ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL     Kd   (PPM )    (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

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

   .125(  1.224)  12  14       2.4  142.0   AERIAL(16.0)  87.0      .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

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

    251.00        2          N/A       .00-     .00   502.00    502.00

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

             83.948                     32.344

ARTICHOKE

   RUN No.   2 FOR myclobutanil     ON   artichoke     * INPUT VALUES *

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

   RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL   APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

    ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL     Kd   (PPM )    (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

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

   .100(   .546)   6  14       2.4  142.0   AERIAL(16.0)  87.0      .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

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

    251.00        2          N/A       .00-     .00   502.00    502.00

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

             37.288                     14.352

     SCIGROW

                          VERSION 2.3

            ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

                 OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        SCREENING MODEL

                FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

 SciGrow version 2.3

 chemical:myclobutanil

 time is  9/13/2007  14:16:33

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

  Application      Number of       Total Use    Koc      Soil Aerobic

  rate (lb/acre)  applications   (lb/acre/yr)  (ml/g)   metabolism (days)

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

      0.250           8.0           2.000      2.24E+02      251.0

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

 groundwater screening cond (ppb) =   2.83E+00

 *********************************************************************** *

Appendix 3: Analysis Summary of Myclobutanil Concentrations in USGS NAWQA Surface Water Monitoring Data

USGS Station ID	Count	Maximum	Average

01104615	11	0.033

%

„

•

–

É

Ê

Ì

Í

Ø

á

ö

ý

4

R

ƒ

„

–

U

`

h

k

t

y

Ž

’

•

—

®

°

±

²

Ó

hÆ

怀

 

ô

ô



















퀀ࠂ䀇

ਁ砃愀϶Ò

옍

摧ኽ¡

摧㍹ÿ

j¾

ਁ砃愀϶Ò

ਁ砃愀϶Ò

@

gdˆ

ਁ砃愀϶Ò

ਁ砃愀϶Ò

ਁ砃愀϶Ò

hˆ

h

hˆ

hn

愀Ĥ摧⸭ë

␃؁Ĥ옍

␃؁Ĥ옍

hd

 hd

hd

瑹໶J

  h¾

h¾

”ÿ¼	ô

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

  h¾

h¾

 h¾

h¾

h¾

h¾

瑹໶J

ô

ô

@

 hd

瑹筲w

Ö

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

愀Ĥ摧ࣳ-

瑹筲w

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

kdI

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

kd

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

-

=

>

]

^

|

}

›

œ

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

<

'<

280248082220200	1	0.008	0.008

320132084004303	1	0.008	0.008

372323120481700	5	0.0981	0.08188

372829120420801	7	0.152	0.084271429

372839120413901	19	0.166	0.078010526

373012120393401	4	0.423	0.34675

373020120385201	1	0.0298	0.0298

373112120382901	23	0.507	0.241226087

373115120382801	26	0.079	0.033961538

374111121000301	1	0.124	0.124

374115120591601	1	0.176	0.176

393557105033101	2	0.008	0.0074

393613104511401	2	0.015	0.0115

393944084120700	18	0.131	0.016311111

393948105053501	6	0.008	0.008

394107105021001	2	0.008	0.008

394340085524601	75	0.033	0.008845333

394409105020501	6	0.008	0.008

394553105075101	2	0.008	0.008

394629105063101	2	0.01	0.009

394919105074601	6	0.008	0.007566667

394921105015701	6	0.008	0.008

395324105035001	2	0.008	0.008

395554105085601	2	0.13	0.0725

395707105100401	2	0.008	0.008

395743086030501	29	0.008	0.008

395958105113501	2	0.008	0.008

400000105125400	2	0.008	0.008

400023105142301	2	0.008	0.008

400217105123701	6	0.008	0.008

400607105094401	2	0.008	0.008

400810105071301	2	0.008	0.008

400855105090501	6	0.008	0.008

400925105023201	2	0.0099	0.00895

402549105043101	2	0.008	0.008

403035105035301	2	0.008	0.008

403048105042701	6	0.008	0.008

403308105001601	6	0.008	0.008

403356105024001	2	0.008	0.008

404200105145600	17	0.008	0.008

434745123040200	2	0.008	0.008

435212122483300	2	0.008	0.008

440257123103200	2	0.008	0.008

443326123165200	2	0.008	0.008

445029122592600	2	0.008	0.008

445551123015800	6	0.008	0.008

450022123012400	6	0.008	0.008

451734122585400	2	0.008	0.008

452149123194900	2	0.008	0.008

452231122200000	6	0.008	0.008

452337122243500	6	0.045	0.02305

452414122213200	6	0.06	0.023683333

452526122364400	7	0.008	0.008

452912122291200	2	0.008	0.008

453506123125700	2	0.008	0.008

454321122352300	2	0.008	0.00605

454510122424900	6	0.008	0.008

454543122524900	2	0.008	0.008

454549122295800	6	0.008	0.008

455122122310600	6	0.008	0.008

462023120075200	65	0.0296	0.008101538

462023120075240	9	0.0194	0.008722222

 PAGE   6

 PAGE   1

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65191-65192]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER10-1401-000, ER11-2256-000, ER11-3149-000, ER11-3856-
000, ER11-4580-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
FERC Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that on the following dates members of its staff will
participate in teleconferences and meetings to be conducted by the
California Independent System Operator (CAISO).

The agenda and other documents for the teleconferences and meetings are
available on the CAISO's Web site, http://www.caiso.com.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 18, 2011..................  Renewables Integration Market and
                                     Product Review.
October 19, 2011..................  Settlements and Market Clearing User
                                     Group.
                                    Congestion Revenue Rights.
                                    2012 Grid Management Charge.
October 20, 2011..................  Market Update.
                                    Generated Bids for Outages of Non
                                     Resource Specific.
                                    Resource Adequacy Resources.
October 25, 2011..................  Operation and Maintenance Cost Adder
                                     Review BPM Change Management.
October 26, 2011..................  Market Performance and Planning
                                     Forum.
                                    Settlements and Market Clearing User
                                     Group.
                                    Congestion Revenue Rights.
October 27, 2011..................  Board of Governors Meeting and Audit
                                     Committee.
October 28, 2011..................  Board of Governors Meeting and Audit
                                     Committee.
October 31, 2011..................  Transmission Planning and Generator
                                     Interconnection.
                                    Integration Draft Final Proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences and meetings are open
to all market participants, and staff's attendance is part of the
Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences and meetings
may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 294-0275.

    Dated: October 14, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27141 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P