PUBLIC MEETING Enforceable Consent Agreement Development for Perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and Fluorinated Telomers Location: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), East Bldg. Rm. 1153 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 Date: Friday, June 6, 2003; 12: 00 PM  5: 00 PM Second Revised Draft Agenda 12: 00  12: 30 Introduction of Participants   Opening Remarks and ECA Process ( EPA)   Charles M. Auer, Director Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT)

12: 30  12: 55 Opening Statements by Interested Parties ( 3 to 5 minutes each) ° Center for Regulatory Effectiveness: Scott Slaughter ° Little Hocking Water Association: Robert L. Griffin ° Environmental Working Group: Kristina Thayer ° DuPont: Dr. Uma Chowdhry ° Telomer Research Program: Stephen H. Korzeniowski ° SPI Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group: Don Duncan 12: 55  1: 10 Overview of EPA Preliminary Framework Document for ECA Data Development for PFOA and Telomers ° Telomer Data Needs ° Fluoropolymer Data Needs ° Rationales for Proposed Fate Testing and Monitoring/ Sampling 1: 10  2: 00 General Discussion Among EPA and Interested Parties of Data Needs for Identifying PFOA Sources and Pathways of Exposure 2: 00  2: 10 Break 2: 10  4: 00 Identification and Discussion Among EPA and Interested Parties of ECA Opportunities and Approaches ° ECA Topics Amenable to Quick Resolution ° Telomer ECAs ° Fluoropolymer ECAs ° Other Additional ECA Opportunities?

4: 00  4: 20 Next Steps 4: 20  4: 50 Public Comment ( Open mike: maximum time 3 minutes per speaker) Members of the public not registered as Interested Parties will be given preference, since Interested Parties can participate in earlier discussions.

4: 50  5: 00 OPPT Closing Remarks U. S. EPA Amended " Interested Parties" List for June 6, 2003 Meeting June 2, 2003 List of " Interested Parties" for PFOA and Telomer ECA Negotiations The following groups and/ or individuals have requested status as " interested parties" for the purpose of monitoring or participating in ECA negotiations on PFOA and fluorinated telomers.

3M Advanced Polymer, Inc. AGA Chemicals American Council on Science and Health American Chemistry Council American Fiber Manufacturers Association, Inc. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers USA, Inc. ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. Bennett & Williams ( Environmental Consultants) Chamber of Commerce of the Mid Ohio Valley Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation Clariant GmbH Daikin America Dainippon Ink & Chemicals Davis, Pickering & Co., Inc. Department of the Navy DuPont DuPont Textiles and Interiors, Inc. Dyneon Environmental Health Research Foundation Environmental Working Group Fire Fighting Foam Coalition Vicky Gheen ( Private Citizen) Hughes Associates, Inc. International Imaging Industry Association Little Hocking Water Association, Inc. Miteni S. p. A. Mitsubishi International Corporation Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission OMNOVA Solutions Parkersburg Wood County Area Development Corporation Rich Purdy Regenerative Products Solvay Solexis, Inc. Society of the Plastics Industry/ Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group Telomer Research Program Tennant Rentals The Area Roundtable The Carpet and Rug Institute The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness Tuppers Plains Chester Water District United Bank, West Virginia University of Pennsylvania Medical Center W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Walki Wisa Ltd. West Virginia Class Action Plaintiffs West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35133-35136]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0449; FRL-8683-4]

Proposed Approval of the Central Characterization Project's
Transuranic Waste Characterization Program at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) is announcing
the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 45 days on, the
proposed approval of the radioactive, contact-handled (CH), transuranic
(TRU) waste characterization program implemented by the Central
Characterization Project (CCP) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This waste is intended for disposal at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
    In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the
characterization of CH TRU debris waste from ORNL-CCP during an
inspection conducted the week of November 13, 2007. Using the systems
and processes developed as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's
(DOE's) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) program, EPA verified whether DOE
could adequately characterize CH TRU waste consistent with the
Compliance Criteria. The results of EPA's evaluation of ORNL-CCP's
program and its proposed approval are described in the Agency's
inspection report, which is available for review in the public dockets
listed in ADDRESSES. We will consider public comments received on or
before the due date mentioned in DATES.
    This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes
evaluated by EPA and EPA's proposed approval. As required by the 40 CFR
194.8, at the end of a 45-day comment period EPA will evaluate public
comments received, and if appropriate, finalize the reports responding
to the relevant public comments, and issue a final report and approval
letter to DOE.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0449, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0449. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
Part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies
of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged
for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar or Ed Feltcorn,
Radiation Protection Division, Center for Federal Regulations, Mail
Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    DOE is developing the WIPP, near Carlsbad in southeastern New
Mexico, as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive
waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub.
L. No. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. No. 104-201), TRU waste consists
of materials that have atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives
greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100
nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of
the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the
production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and
sludges.
    TRU waste is itself divided into two categories, based on its level
of radioactivity. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste accounts for about 97
percent of the volume of TRU waste currently destined for the WIPP. It
is packaged in 55-gallon metal drums or in metal boxes and can be
handled under controlled conditions without any shielding beyond the
container itself. The maximum radiation dose at the surface of a CH TRU
waste container is 200 millirems per hour. CH waste primarily emits
alpha particles that are easily shielded by a sheet of paper or the
outer layer of a person's skin.
    Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste emits more radiation than CH TRU
waste and must therefore be both handled and transported in shielded
casks. Surface radiation levels of unshielded containers of remote-
handled transuranic waste exceed 200 millirems per hour. RH waste
primarily emits gamma radiation, which is very penetrating and requires
concrete, lead, or steel to block it.
    On May 13, 1998, EPA issued a final certification of compliance for
the WIPP facility. The final rule was published in the Federal Register
on May 18, 1998 (63 FR 27354). EPA officially recertified WIPP on March
29, 2006 (71 FR 18015). Both the certification and recertification
determined that WIPP complies with the Agency's radioactive waste
disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C, and is
therefore safe to contain TRU waste.
    The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1)
prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other
than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA
determines that the site has established and executed a quality
assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  194.22(a)(2)(i),
194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities
and assumptions (Condition 2

of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194); and (2) (with the exception of
specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit
shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any other
site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with
the waste characterization requirements of Sec.  194.22(c)(4)
(Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194). The EPA's approval
process for waste generator sites is described in Sec.  194.8 (revised
July 2004).
    Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification Decision requires EPA to
conduct independent inspections at DOE's waste generator/storage sites
of their TRU waste characterization capabilities before approving their
program and the waste for disposal at the WIPP. EPA's inspection and
approval process gives EPA (a) Discretion in establishing technical
priorities, (b) the ability to accommodate variation in the site's
waste characterization capabilities, and (c) flexibility in scheduling
site WC inspections.
    As described in Sec.  194.8(b), EPA's baseline inspections evaluate
each WC process component (equipment, procedures, and personnel
training/experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in
characterizing TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP. During an
inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU
waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and
tracking requirements under Sec.  194.24. A baseline inspection may
describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste
characterization processes [Sec.  194.8(b)(2)(iii)]. In addition, a
baseline inspection approval must specify what subsequent WC program
changes or expansion should be reported to EPA [Sec.  194.8(b)(4)]. The
Agency is required to assign Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) to the
reportable changes depending on their potential impact on data quality.
A T1 designation requires that the site must notify EPA of proposed
changes to the approved components of an individual WC process (such as
radioassay equipment or personnel), and EPA must also approve the
change before it can be implemented. A WC element with a T2 designation
allows the site to implement changes to the approved components of
individual WC processes (such as visual examination procedures) but
requires EPA notification. The Agency may choose to inspect the site to
evaluate technical adequacy before approval. EPA inspections conducted
to evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up inspections under the
authority of Sec.  194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up inspections,
if warranted, EPA may opt to conduct continued compliance inspections
at TRU waste sites with a baseline approval under the authority of
Sec.  194.24(h).
    The site inspection and approval process outlined in Sec.  194.8
requires EPA to issue a Federal Register notice proposing the baseline
compliance decision, docket the inspection report for public review,
and seek public comment on the proposed decision for a period of 45
days. The report must describe the WC processes EPA inspected at the
site, as well as their compliance with Sec.  194.24 requirements.

III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision

    EPA has performed a baseline inspection of CH TRU waste
characterization (WC) activities at ORNL-CCP (EPA Inspection No. EPA-
ORNL-CCP-CH-11.07-8). The purpose of EPA's inspection was to verify
that the waste characterization program implemented at ORNL-CCP for
characterizing CH TRU, retrievably-stored, debris waste is technically
adequate and meets the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 194.24.
    During the inspection, EPA evaluated the adequacy of the site's WC
programs for CH TRU debris (S5000) waste to be disposed of at the WIPP.
The Agency examined the following activities:
     Acceptable knowledge (AK) for CH retrievably-stored TRU
debris waste (S5000)
     One nondestructive assay (NDA) system, the Drum Waste
Assay System Imaging Passive-Active Neutron/Segmented Gamma Scanner
(DWAS IPAN/SGS) system for characterizing debris (S5000) waste
     Real-time radiography (RTR) for CH retrievably-stored TRU
debris waste (S5000)
     WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) for CH retrievably-
stored TRU debris waste (S5000)
    During the inspection, ORNL-CCP personnel stated that load
management will never be performed at the site and EPA did not evaluate
this aspect during the inspection [see Section 8.1(5) of the inspection
report]. Therefore, this proposed approval does not include load
management for ORNL-CCP.
    The EPA inspection team determined that the ORNL-CCP WC program for
CH TRU waste was technically adequate. EPA is proposing to approve the
ORNL-CCP CH TRU WC program in the configuration observed during this
inspection and described in docketed inspection report and its'
attached checklists (Attachments A.1 through A.4). This proposed
approval includes the following:
    (1) The AK process for CH retrievably-stored TRU debris wastes
    (2) The DWAS IPAN/SGS system for assaying debris wastes
    (3) The nondestructive examination (NDE) process of RTR for
retrievably-stored debris wastes
    (4) The WWIS process for tracking waste contents of debris wastes
    ORNL-CCP must report and receive EPA approval of any Tier 1 (T1)
changes to the ORNL-CCP WC activities from the date of the baseline
inspection, and must notify EPA regarding Tier 2 (T2) changes according
to Table 1, below. The format of Table 1 in this report closely follows
the format used in previous CH baseline approval reports.

   Table 1.--Tiering of TRU WC Processes Implemented by ORNL-CCP Based on November 13-15, 2007, Site Baseline
                                                   Inspection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          WC process elements               ORNL-CCP WC T1 changes              ORNL-CCP WC T2 changes a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Knowledge (AK) and Load      Implementation of load          Notification to EPA upon completion of
 Management.                             management; AK (5).             AK accuracy reports; AK (2).
                                        Implementation of AK for        Notification to EPA upon completion of
                                         wastes other than retrievably-  new versions or updates/substantive
                                         stored debris (i.e.,            modifications b of the following:
                                         retrievably stored soil/
                                         gravel and solids and/or any
                                         type of newly-generated
                                         waste); AK (15).
                                                                        --Changes to AK-NDA communications and
                                                                         memoranda; AK (3).
                                                                        --Changes to site procedure; AK (4).

                                                                        --AK summaries that describe wastes
                                                                         beyond the 144 containers described in
                                                                         this report; AK (6).
                                                                        --Radiological Discrepancy Resolution
                                                                         Reports (AK-AK and AK-NDA) pertinent to
                                                                         Waste Stream OR-NFS-CH-HET; AK (11).
                                                                        --Completed Attachments 4 and 6 and
                                                                         associated memoranda for Waste Stream
                                                                         OR-NFS-CH-HET; AK (10) and (14).
                                                                        --AK Summaries/Waste Stream Profile
                                                                         Forms (WSPFs) and AK documentation
                                                                         reports; AK (15).
Non Destructive Assay (NDA)...........  New equipment or physical       Notification to EPA upon completion of
                                         modifications to approved       changes to software for approved
                                         equipment; c NDA (1).           equipment, operating range(s), and site
                                                                         procedures that require CBFO approval;
                                                                         NDA (2).
                                        Extension or changes to         ........................................
                                         approved calibration range
                                         for approved equipment; NDA
                                         (2).
Real-Time Radiography (RTR)...........  N/A...........................  Notification to EPA upon the following:
                                                                        --Implementation of new RTR equipment or
                                                                         substantive changes c to approved RTR
                                                                         equipment; RTR (1).
                                                                        --Completion of changes to site RTR
                                                                         procedures requiring CBFO approvals;
                                                                         RTR (2).
Visual Examination (VE)...............  Not approved at this time.....  Not approved at this time.
WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS)..  Implementation of load          Notification to EPA upon the following:
                                         management; WWIS (4).
                                                                        --Completion of changes to WWIS
                                                                         procedure(s) requiring CBFO approvals;
                                                                         WWIS (1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Upon receiving EPA approval, ORNL-CCP will report all T2 changes to EPA at the end of each fiscal quarter.
b ``Substantive changes'' means changes with the potential to impact the site's WC activities or documentation
  thereof, excluding changes that are solely related to ES&H, nuclear safety, or RCRA, or that are editorial in
  nature.
c Modifications to approved equipment include all changes with the potential to affect NDA data relative to
  waste isolation and exclude minor changes, such as the addition of safety-related equipment.

IV. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment

    EPA has placed the report discussing the results of the Agency's
inspection of the ORNL-CCP Site in the public docket as described in
ADDRESSES. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public
45 days to comment on these documents. The Agency requests comments on
the proposed approval decision, as described in the inspection report.
EPA will accept public comment on this notice and supplemental
information as described in Section 1.B. above. EPA will not make a
determination of compliance before the 45-day comment period ends. At
the end of the public comment period, EPA will evaluate all relevant
public comments and revise the inspection report as necessary. If
appropriate, the Agency will then issue a final approval letter and
inspection report, both of which will be posted on the WIPP Web site.
    Information on the certification decision is filed in the official
EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in
Washington, DC, and at the three EPA WIPP informational docket
locations in Albuquerque, Carlsbad, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. The
dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air
Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official
Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.

    Dated: May 30, 2008.
Elizabeth Cotsworth,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. E8-14006 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7703-7707]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Technical Conference

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participation of Distributed Energy         RM18-9-000
 Resource Aggregations in Markets Operated
 by Regional Transmission Organizations
 and Independent System Operators.
Distributed Energy Resources--Technical     AD18-10-000
 Considerations for the Bulk Power System.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will hold a technical conference to discuss the participation of
distributed energy resource (DER) aggregations in Regional Transmission
Organization (RTO) and Independent System Operator (ISO) markets, and
to more broadly discuss the potential effects of distributed energy
resources on the bulk power system. The technical conference will take
place on April 10 and 11, 2018 at the Commission's offices at 888 First
Street NE, Washington DC beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m.
(Eastern Time). Commissioners will lead the second panel of the
technical conference. Commission staff will lead the other six panels,
and Commissioners may attend.
    The technical conference will address two broad set of issues
related to DERs. First, the technical conference will gather additional
information to help the Commission determine what action to take on the
distributed energy resource aggregation reforms proposed in its Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on Electric Storage Participation in Markets
Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators (NOPR).\1\ In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require
each RTO/ISO to define DER aggregators as a type of market participant
that can participate in the RTO/ISO markets under the participation
model that best accommodates the physical and operational
characteristics of its DER aggregation.\2\ As discussed in the Final
Rule issued concurrently with this Notice, the Commission is taking no
further action in Docket No. RM16-23-000 regarding the proposed DER
aggregation reforms.\3\ Instead, the Commission will continue to
explore the proposed distributed energy resource aggregation reforms
under Docket No. RM18-9-000. All comments previously filed in response
to the NOPR in Docket No. RM16-23-000 will be incorporated by reference
into Docket No. RM18-9-000, and any further comments regarding the
proposed distributed energy resource aggregation reforms, including
discussion of those reforms during this technical conference, should be
filed henceforth in Docket No. RM18-9-000.\4\ Second, the technical
conference will explore issues related to the potential effects of DERs
on the bulk power system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,718 (2016) (NOPR).
    \2\ Id. P 1.
    \3\ See Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, Final Rule, 162 FERC 61,127, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,718.
    \4\ Further comments regarding the proposed distributed energy
resource aggregation reforms should no longer be filed in Docket No.
RM16-23-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attached to this Notice is a description of the seven panels that
will be conducted at the technical conference.
    Further details of this conference will be provided in a
supplemental notice.
    Those wishing to participate in this conference should submit a
nomination form online by 5:00 p.m. on March 15, 2018 at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/04-10-18-speaker-form.asp.
    All interested persons may attend the conference, and registration
is not required. However, in-person attendees are encouraged to
register on-line by April 3, 2018 at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/04-10-18-form.asp. In-person attendees should allow time
to pass through building security procedures before the 9:30 a.m. start
time of the technical conference.
    The Commission will transcribe and webcast this conference.
Transcripts will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting
(202-347-3700). A link to the webcast of this event will be available
in the Commission Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and offers the
option of listening to the conference via phone-bridge for a fee. For
additional information, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703)
993-3100.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact David Kathan at<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], or
Louise Nutter at<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
(202) 502-8368, [email protected].

    Dated: February 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Distributed Energy Resources Technical Conference

Docket Nos. RM18-9-000 and AD18-10-000

April 10 and 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
    The purpose of this technical conference is to gather additional
information to help the Commission determine what action to take on the
distributed energy resource (DER) aggregation reforms proposed in the
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electric Storage
Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System Operators (NOPR), and to explore
issues related to the potential effects of DERs on the bulk power
system. Panels 1 and 3 on the first day focus on specific NOPR
proposals that relate to DER participation and compensation. Panel 2
will provide a forum for Commissioners to discuss DER aggregation with
a panel of state and local regulators. During the second day of the
technical conference, operational issues associated with DER data,
modeling, and coordination will be examined.
Panel 1: Economic Dispatch, Pricing, and Settlement of DER Aggregations
    The objective of this panel is to discuss the integration of DER
aggregations into the modeling, clearing, dispatch, and settlement
mechanisms of RTOs and ISOs as considered in the NOPR. The NOPR
proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff to

remove barriers to the participation of DER aggregations in its markets
by, among other measures, establishing locational requirements for DER
aggregations that are as geographically broad as technically
feasible.\1\ The NOPR also addressed the use of distribution factors
\2\ and bidding parameters \3\ for DER aggregations. In consideration
of comments received in response to the NOPR, staff seeks additional
information about how DER aggregations could locate across more than
one pricing node. Staff would also like additional information about
bidding parameters or other potential mechanisms needed to represent
the physical and operational characteristics of DER aggregations in
RTO/ISO markets. In particular, Commission staff expects to explore the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOPR at P 139.
    \2\ The Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise
its tariff to include the requirement that DER aggregators (1)
provide default distribution factors when they register their DER
aggregation and (2) update those distribution factors if necessary
when they submit offers to sell or bids to buy into the organized
wholesale electric markets. Id. P 143.
    \3\ The Commission sought comment on whether bidding parameters
in addition to those already incorporated into existing
participation models may be necessary to adequately characterize the
physical or operational characteristics of DER aggregations. Id. P
144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Acknowledging that some RTOs/ISOs already allow
aggregations across multiple pricing nodes, what approaches are
available to ensure that the dispatch of a multi-node DER aggregation
does not exacerbate a transmission constraint?
     Because transmission constraints change over time, would
the ability of a multi-node DER aggregation to participate in an RTO/
ISO market need to be revisited as system topology changes?
     Do multi-node DER aggregations present any special
considerations for the reliability of the transmission system that do
not arise from other market participants? How could these concerns be
resolved?
     What types of modifications would need to be made to the
modeling and dispatch software, communications platforms, and
automation tools necessary to enable reliable and efficient system
dispatch for multi-node DER aggregations? How long would it take for
these changes to be implemented?
     If the Commission requires the RTOs/ISOs to allow multi-
node DER aggregations to participate in their markets, how should a DER
aggregation located across multiple pricing nodes be settled for the
services that it provides? One approach to settling a multi-node DER
aggregation could be to pay it the weighted average locational marginal
price (LMP) across the nodes at which it is located. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach? Are there other
approaches that should be considered?
     The NOPR considered the use of ``distribution factors'' to
account for the expected response of DER aggregations from multiple
nodes. Are there other characteristics of DER aggregations that may not
be accommodated by existing bidding parameters in the RTOs/ISOs? If so,
what are they? Would new bidding parameters be necessary? If so, what
are they?
Panel 2: Discussion of Operational Implications of DER Aggregation With
State and Local Regulators
    This panel will provide a forum for Commissioners to discuss the
NOPR's DER aggregation proposals with state and local regulators. The
discussion will provide an opportunity for state and local regulators
to provide their perspectives and concerns about the operational
effects that DER participation in the wholesale market could have on
facilities they regulate. In particular, Commissioners expect to
explore the following questions:
     What are the potential positive or negative operational
impacts (e.g., safety, reliability, and dispatch) that DER
participation in the wholesale market could have on facilities
regulated by state and local authorities? How should the costs
associated with monitoring and addressing such potential impacts on the
distribution grid caused by the NOPR proposal be addressed, and fairly
allocated? Are existing retail rate structures able to allocate costs
to DER aggregations that utilize the distribution systems, and if not,
what modifications or coordination are feasible?
     Do state and local authorities have operational concerns
with a DER aggregation participating in both wholesale and retail
markets? If so, what, if any, coordination protocols between states or
local regulators and regional markets would be required to facilitate
DER aggregations' participation in both retail and wholesale markets?
Could the use of appropriate metering and telemetry address the ability
to distinguish between markets and services, and prevent double
compensation for the same services? What is the role of state and local
regulators in monitoring and regulating the potential for such double
compensation? How should regional flexibility be accommodated?
     What entities should be included in the coordination
processes used to facilitate the participation of DER aggregations in
Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) and Independent System
Operator (ISO) markets? Should state and local regulatory authorities
play an active role in these coordination processes? Is there a need to
modify existing RTO/ISO protocols or develop new protocols to
accommodate state participation in this coordination? What should be
the role of state and local regulators in the NOPR's proposed
distribution utility review of DER aggregation registrations?
     Does the proposed use of market participation agreements
address state and local regulator concerns about the role of
distribution utilities in the coordination and registration of DERs in
aggregations? Are the proposed provisions in the market participation
agreements that require that DER aggregators attest that they are
compliant with the tariffs and operation procedures of distribution
utilities and state and local regulators sufficient to address such
concerns?
     What are the proper protections and policies to ensure
that DER aggregations participating in wholesale markets will not
negatively affect efficient outcomes in the distribution system?
Panel 3: Participation of DERs in RTO/ISO Markets
    DERs can both sell services into the RTO/ISO markets and
participate in retail compensation programs. To ensure that that there
is no duplication of compensation for the same service, in the NOPR the
Commission proposed that individual DERs participating in one or more
retail compensation programs, such as net metering or another RTO/ISO
market participation program, will not be eligible to participate in
the RTO/ISO markets as part of a DER aggregation.\4\ This panel will
explore potential solutions to challenges associated with DER
aggregations that provide multiple services, including ways to avoid
duplication of compensation for their services in the RTO/ISO markets,
potential ways for the RTOs/ISOs to place appropriate restrictions on
the services they can provide, and procedures to ensure that DERs are
not accounted for in ways that affect efficient outcomes in the RTO/ISO
markets. In particular, Commission staff expects to explore the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. P 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Given the variety of wholesale and retail services, is it
possible to

universally characterize a set of wholesale and retail services as the
``same service''? If so, how could the Commission prohibit a DER from
providing the same service to the wholesale market as it provides in a
retail compensation program?
     In Order No. 719, the Commission stated that ``[a]n RTO or
ISO may place appropriate restrictions on any customer's participation
in an [aggregation of retail customers]-aggregated demand response bid
to avoid counting the same demand response resource more than once.''
\5\ How have the RTOs/ISOs effectuated this requirement or otherwise
ensured that demand response participating in their markets is not
being double counted? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of
taking this approach for DER aggregations instead of the approach
proposed in the NOPR for preventing double compensation for the same
service?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric
Markets, Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,281, at P 158
(2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 719-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,292 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 719-B, 129 FERC ] 61,252
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What other options besides the NOPR's proposed limits on
dual participation exist to address issues associated with the
participation of DERs or DER aggregations in one or more retail
compensation programs or another wholesale market participation program
at the same time as it participates in a wholesale DER aggregation? Is
there a way to coordinate DER participation in multiple markets or
compensation programs? Is a possible solution having a targeted
prohibition, such as the limitation placed on net-metered resources in
CAISO? \6\ Are there other means?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CAISO Tariff, Sec.  4.17.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Panel 4: Collection and Availability of Data on DER Installations
    To plan and operate the bulk power system, it is important for
transmission planners, transmission operators, and distribution
utilities to collect and share validated data across the transmission-
distribution interface. In September 2017, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) published a Reliability Guideline on DER
modeling (Guideline) that specified the minimum DER information needed
by transmission planners and planning coordinators to assist in
modeling and assessments.\7\ The Guideline references the importance of
static data (such as the capacity, capabilities, and location of a DER
installation) for the entities involved in the planning of the bulk
power system. This panel will focus on understanding the need for bulk
power system planners and operators to have access to accurate data to
plan and operate the bulk power system, explore the types of data that
are needed, and assess the current state of DER data collection. The
panel will also address regional DER penetration levels and any
potential effects of inaccurate long-term DER forecasting. A Commission
Staff DER Technical Report is being issued concurrently with this
Notice to provide a common foundation for the topics raised in this
panel. For this panel, Commission staff expects to explore the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NERC Distributed Energy Resource Modeling Reliability
Guideline, at 5 (Sept. 2017), available at http://www.nerc.com/comm/PC_Reliability_Guidelines_DL/Reliability_Guideline_-_DER_Modeling_Parameters_-_2017-08-18_-_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What type of information do bulk power system planners and
operators need regarding DER installations within their footprint to
plan and operate the bulk power system? Would it be sufficient for
distribution utilities to provide aggregate information about the
penetration of DERs below certain points on the transmission-
distribution interface? If greater granularity is needed, what level of
detail would be sufficient? Is validation of the submitted data
possible using data available?
     What, if any, data on DER installations is currently
collected, and by whom is it collected? Do procedures and appropriate
agreements exist to share this data with affected bulk power system
entities (i.e., those entities responsible for the reliable operation
of the bulk power system or for modeling and planning for a reliable
bulk power system)? Is there variation by entity or region?
     At various DER penetration levels, what planning and
operations impacts do you observe? Do balancing authorities with
significant growth in DERs experience the need to address bulk power
system reliability and operational considerations at certain DER
penetration levels? What are they? Is the MW level of DER penetration
the most important factor in whether DERs cause planning and
operational impacts, or do certain characteristics of installed DERs
affect the system operator's analysis? Is the point at which DER
penetration causes bulk power system reliability and operational
impacts the point at which it becomes necessary for distribution
utilities to provide information on DERs to the bulk power system
operator, or is there some other threshold that could trigger a need
for sharing this information? How much might the answer to these
questions vary on a regional basis, and what factors may contribute to
this variance?
     How are long-term projections for DER penetrations
developed? Are these projections currently included in related
forecasting efforts? Do system operators study the potential effects of
future DER growth to assess changing infrastructure and planning needs
at different penetration levels?
     What are the effects on the bulk power system if long-term
forecasts of DER growth are inaccurate? Are these effects within
current planning horizons? Are changes in the expected growth of DERs
incorporated into ongoing planning efforts?
     How are DERs incorporated into production cost modeling
studies? Do current tools allow for assessment of forecasting
variations and their effects?
     Noting that participation in the RTO/ISO markets by DER
aggregators may provide more information to the RTOs/ISOs about DERs
than would otherwise be available, should any specific information
about DER aggregations or the individual DERs in them be required from
aggregators to ensure proper planning and operation of the bulk power
system?
     Do the RTOs/ISOs need any directly metered data about the
operations of DER aggregations to ensure proper planning and operation
of the bulk power system?
Panel 5: Incorporating DERs in Modeling, Planning and Operations
Studies
    Bulk power system planners and operators must select methods to
feasibly model DERs at the bulk power system level with sufficient
granularity to ensure accurate results. The chosen methodology for
grouping DERs at the bulk power system level could affect planners'
ability to predict system behavior following events, or to identify a
need for different operating procedures under changing system
conditions. Further, the operation of DERs can affect both bulk power
systems and distribution facilities in unintended ways, suggesting that
new tools to model the transmission and distribution interface may be
needed. Staff is also aware of ongoing work in this area, for example
efforts at NERC, national labs and other groups, to evaluate options
for studies in these areas, which could also inform future work. This
panel will focus on the incorporation of DERs into different types of
planning and operational studies, including options for modeling

DERs and the methodology for the inclusion of DERs in larger regional
models. The Commission Staff DER Technical Report issued concurrently
with this Notice is intended to provide a common foundation for the
topics raised in this panel. For this panel, Commission staff expects
to explore the following questions:

     What are current and best practices for modeling DERs in
different types of planning, operations, and production cost studies?
Are options available for modeling the interactions between the
transmission and distribution systems?
     To what extent are capabilities and performance of DERs
currently modeled? Do current modeling tools provide features needed to
model these capabilities?
     What methods, such as net load, composite load models,
detailed models or others, are currently used in power flow and dynamic
models to represent groups of DERs at the bulk power system level?
Would more detailed models of DERs at the bulk power system level
provide better visibility and enable more accurate assessment of their
impacts on system conditions? Does the appropriate method for grouping
DERs vary by penetration level?
     Do current contingency studies include the outage of DER
facilities, and if they are considered, how is the contingency size
chosen? At what penetration levels or under what system conditions
could including DER outages be beneficial? Are DERs accounted for in
calculations for Under Frequency Load Shedding and related studies?
     What methods are used to calculate capacity needed for
balancing supply and demand with large amount of solar DER (ramping and
frequency control) and determining which resources can provide an
appropriate response?
Panel 6: Coordination of DER Aggregations Participating in RTO/ISO
Markets
    In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO to
revise its tariff to provide for coordination among itself, a DER
aggregator, and the relevant distribution utility or utilities when a
DER aggregator registers a new DER aggregation or modifies an existing
DER aggregation.\8\ The Commission proposed that this coordination
would provide the relevant distribution utility or utilities with the
opportunity to review the list of individual resources that are located
on their distribution system that enroll in a DER aggregation before
those resources may participate in RTO/ISO electric markets. This panel
will examine the potential ways for RTOs/ISOs, distribution utilities,
retail regulatory authorities, and DER aggregators to coordinate the
integration of a DER aggregation into the RTO/ISO markets. In addition,
because the use of grid architecture \9\ can help identify the
relationships among the entities involved in coordinating the
integration of DER aggregations, this panel will also examine the
potential architectural designs for the initial coordination processes
from the point of view of the RTO/ISO markets. In particular,
Commission staff expects to explore the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NOPR at P 154.
    \9\ As an aid to thinking about the electric power grid, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory and others have coined the term ``grid
architecture,'' which they define as the application of network
theory and control theory to a conceptual model of the electric
power grid that defines its structure, behavior, and essential
limits. See, e.g., https://gridarchitecture.pnnl.gov/. Expanding
upon this concept, some thinkers have begun discussing different
types of ``grid architecture,'' which presumably differ in
structure, behavior or essential limits from current norms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the Commission adopts its proposal to require the RTO/
ISO to allow a distribution utility to review the list of individual
resources that are located on their distribution system that enroll in
a DER aggregation before those resources may participate in RTO/ISO
electric markets, is it appropriate for distribution utilities to have
a role in determining when the individual DERs may begin participation?
Should the RTO/ISO tariff provide the distribution utility with the
ability to provide either binding or non-binding input to the RTO/ISO?
Should the RTO/ISO provide the distribution utility with a specific
period of time in which to consult before DERs may begin participation?
Should the Commission require the RTO/ISO to receive explicit consent
from the distribution utility before a DER is included in a DER
aggregation? Are there other approaches to coordinate with the
distribution utility? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
these approaches?
     Are new processes and protocols needed to ensure
coordination among DER aggregators, distribution utilities, and RTOs/
ISOs during registration of a new DER aggregations? How can the
Commission ensure that any new processes and protocols occur in a way
that provides adequate transparency to the interested parties and also
occurs on a timely basis?
     Should there be a coordination agreement in place prior to
the participation of DER aggregation in RTO/ISO markets? Who should be
parties to this coordination agreement? How would the coordination
agreement be enforced?
     What is the best approach for involving retail regulatory
authorities in the registration of DER aggregations in the RTO/ISO
markets?
     What types of grid architecture could support the
integration of DER aggregations into the RTO/ISO markets? Knowing that
a variety of grid architectures are being explored in various regions,
does it make sense for the Commission to consider specific
architectural requirements for RTOs/ISOs for the effective integration
and coordination of DER aggregations?
Panel 7: Ongoing Operational Coordination
    This panel will focus primarily on the operational considerations
associated with both individual DERs and DER aggregations and with the
interactions and communications between DERs, DER aggregators,
distribution utilities, and transmission operators. In the NOPR, the
Commission acknowledged that ongoing coordination between the RTO/ISO,
a DER aggregator, and the relevant distribution utility or utilities
may be necessary to ensure that the DER aggregator is dispatching
individual resources in a DER aggregation consistent with the
limitations of the distribution system.\10\ The Commission proposed
that each RTO/ISO revise its tariff to establish a process for ongoing
coordination, including operational coordination, among itself, the DER
aggregator, and the distribution utility to maximize the availability
of the DER aggregation consistent with the safe and reliable operation
of the distribution system. To help effectuate this proposal, the
Commission also proposed to require each RTO/ISO to revise its tariff
to require the DER aggregator to report to the RTO/ISO any changes to
its offered quantity and related distribution factors that result from
distribution line faults or outages. The Commission also sought comment
on the level of detail necessary in the RTO/ISO tariffs to establish a
framework for ongoing coordination between the RTO/ISO, a DER
aggregator, and the relevant distribution utility or utilities. To
further explore these issues, Commission staff expects to explore the
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NOPR at P 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     What real-time data acquisition and communication
technologies are currently in use to provide bulk power system
operators with visibility into the distribution system? Are they
adequate to convey the information necessary for

transmission and distribution operators to assess distribution system
conditions in real time? Are new systems or approaches needed? Does DER
aggregation require separate or additional capabilities and
infrastructure for communication and control?
     What processes/protocols do distribution utilities,
transmission operators, and DERs or DER aggregators use to coordinate
with each other? Are these processes/protocols capable of providing
needed real-time communications and coordination? What new processes,
resources, and efforts will be required to achieve effective real-time
coordination?
     What are the minimum set of specific RTO/ISO operational
protocols, performance standards, and market rules that should be
adopted now to ensure operational coordination for DER aggregation
participating in the RTO/ISO markets? What additional protocols may be
important for the future? Should the Commission adopt more prescriptive
requirements with respect to coordination than those proposed in the
NOPR? If so, what should the Commission require?
     Should distribution utilities be able to override RTO/ISO
decisions regarding day-ahead and real-time dispatch of DER
aggregations to resolve local distribution reliability issues? If so,
should DER aggregations nonetheless be subject to non-deliverability
penalties under such circumstances?
     Is it possible for DERs or DER aggregations participating
in the RTO/ISO markets to also be used to improve distribution system
operations and reliability? If so, please provide examples of how this
could be accomplished.
     Can real-time dispatch of aggregated DERs address
distribution constraints? If not, can tools be developed to accomplish
this?
     Should individual DERs be required to have communications
capabilities to comply with control center obligations? What level of
communications security should be employed for these communications?
     How might recent and expected technical advancements be
used to enhance the coordination of DER aggregations, for example,
integrating Energy Management Systems (EMS) and Distribution Management
Systems (DMS) for efficient operational coordination?

[FR Doc. 2018-03649 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11621-11622]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-81]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0149; FRL-7765-2]

Pesticide Product; Registration Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application to register a
pesticide product containing a new active ingredient not included in
any currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) numberEPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0149, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
    Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0149. The
docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket
facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0149. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be captured automatically and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage athttp://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mandula, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532) .
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.

    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide
product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently
registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of
FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a
decision by the Agency on the applications.

Product Containing Active Ingredients not Included in any Currently
Registered Products

    File Symbol 82681-R. Applicant: ARI Inc. 700 Research Center Blvd.,
Fayetteville, AR 72701. Product Name: LockdownTM retro.
Active ingredient: Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. aeschynomene
(Cga) at 45%. Proposed classification/use: Mycoherbicide/Control of
Northern jointvetch on rice crops in Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: February 23, 2006.
Janet L. Anderson,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-2014 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19892-19893]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-116-000]

Notice of Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership

    Take notice that on March 21, 2014 Great Lakes Gas Transmission
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes), 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400,
Houston, Texas 7700-2761, filed in the above referenced docket an
abbreviated application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and Sections 157.7 and 157.18 of the Commission's regulations
requesting authorization for a temporary act or operation to
temporarily deactivate the certified capacity associated with a
temporary, phased reduction in the maximum operating pressure (MOP)
from 974 psig to 897 psig of a portion of its natural gas pipeline
system from the Canadian/United States border at Emerson to Great
Lakes' Cloquet Compressor Station 5 in Minnesota. Great Lakes proposes
this temporary action for a period of up to 36 month, all as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web 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, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Richard Parke, Manager, Certificates, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Great Lakes
Gas Transmission Limited Partnership, 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400,
Houston, Texas, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, beginning April 1, 2013 the MOP of the subject
section of pipeline was temporarily reduced by five percent from 974
psig to 925 psig to ensure system integrity and safety. Great Lakes
proposes the second phase of temporary five percent MOP reduction from
925 psig to 879 psig for April 1, 2015 until April 1, 2017. These
proposed operational changes would result in an overall reduction in
available capacity of approximately 226,000 dekatherms per day of firm
winter and 191,000 dekatherms per day firm summer capacity for west to
east flow. Great Lakes states that, during the 36-month period, it will
determine if market conditions support the continued operation at
certified levels of all lines and segments of its system from Canadian/
United States border to Great Lakes' Compressor Station 5, or whether
it will instead seek authorization for permanent abandonment of a
portion of the capacity and line segment(s) associated with this
temporary action. Great Lakes states that the MOP reduction does not
impact capacity on the east to west flow or Great Lakes' ability to
meet any of its existing firm contractual commitments. Great Lakes
states no construction or ground disturbance has or will occur for
these modifications and therefore there is no associated cost.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 25, 2014.

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08053 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P