[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51654-51659]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 2 and 38

[Docket No. RM05-5-026]

Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for
Public Utilities

AGENCY:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY:  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
proposes to remove the incorporation by reference of the Wholesale
Electric Quadrant (WEQ) WEQ-006 Time Error Correction Business Practice
Standards as adopted by the North American Energy Standards Board
(NAESB) in its WEQ Version 003.0 Businesses Practice Standards. The
WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards
previously defined the commercial based procedures to be used for
reducing time error to keep the system's time within acceptable limits
of true time. NAESB's latest version of its Business Practice Standards
retires and eliminates its Manual Time Error Correction Business
Practice Standards to correspond with the removal of the Time Error
Correction requirements of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), which was approved by the Commission in 2017. The
Commission also proposes to incorporate by reference Standard WEQ-000
(Version 003.2), which eliminates the definitions of ``Time Error'' and
``Time Error Correction'' as well as making unrelated minor
corrections.

DATES:  Comments are due November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES:  Comments, identified by Docket No. RM05-5-026, may be filed
in the following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-

deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael P. Lee (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                         Paragraph Nos.

I. Background........................................                  2
II. Discussion.......................................                  5
III. Implementation..................................                  8
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards...                  9
V. Incorporation By Reference........................                 11
VI. Information Collection Statement.................                 16
VII. Environmental Analysis..........................                 23
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.......                 24
IX. Comment Procedures...............................                 28
X. Document Availability.............................                 32

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remove its incorporation
by reference of the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) WEQ-006 Time
Error Correction Business Practice Standards as adopted by the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in its WEQ Version 003.0
Businesses Practice Standards.\1\ NAESB adopted the Manual Time Error
Correction Business Practice Standard to correspond with a similar
reliability standard adopted by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC). These Time Error Correction standards defined the
commercial methods used for reducing time error to keep the system's
time within acceptable limits of true time. NERC retired its Time Error
Correction reliability standard (BAL-004-0) and the Commission approved
that retirement in a letter order issued on January 18, 2017 in Docket
No. RD17-1-000. To maintain parallel treatment with NERC's reliability
standards, NAESB, in Version 003.2 of its standards, retired and
eliminated the standards contained in its WEQ-006 Manual Time Error
Correction Business Practice Standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NAESB's WEQ Version 003.1 and WEQ Version 003.2 Business
Practice Standards are currently pending Commission review.
    \2\ NAESB notified the Commission that it had adopted Version
003.2 of its standards on December 7, 2018, in Docket No. RM05-5-
000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization that
serves as an industry forum for the development of business practice
standards and communication protocols for the wholesale and retail
natural gas and electricity industry sectors. Since 1995, NAESB and its
predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), have been
accredited members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
complying with ANSI's requirements that its standards reflect a
consensus of the affected industries.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to the establishment of NAESB in 2001, the
Commission's development of business practice standards for the
wholesale electric industry was aided by two ad hoc industry working
groups established during the rulemaking proceeding that resulted in
issuance of Order No. 889 and the creation of the Open Access Same-
Time Information System (OASIS), while GISB's efforts involved the
development of business practice standards for the wholesale natural
gas industry. Once formally established, NAESB took over the
standards development previously handled by GISB and by the electric
working groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. NAESB supports three quadrants of the gas and electric
industries--wholesale gas, wholesale electric, and retail markets
quadrants.\4\ NAESB's standards include business practices intended to
standardize and streamline the transactional processes of the natural
gas and electric industries, as well as communication protocols and
related standards designed to improve the efficiency of communication
within each industry. All participants in the gas and electric
industries are eligible to join NAESB and participate in standards
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The retail gas quadrant and the retail electric quadrant
were combined into the retail markets quadrant. NAESB continues to
refer to these working groups as ``quadrants'' even though there are
now only three quadrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NAESB develops its standards under a consensus process so that
the standards draw support from a wide range of industry members.
NAESB's procedures are designed to ensure that all persons choosing to
participate can have input into the development of a standard,
regardless of whether they are members of NAESB, and each standard
NAESB adopts is supported by a consensus of the relevant industry
segments. Standards that fail to gain consensus support are not
adopted. NAESB's consistent practice has been to submit a report to the
Commission after it has made revisions to existing business practice
standards or has developed and adopted new business practice standards.
NAESB has submitted a report to the Commission to reserve specific
standards in conjunction with the retirement of corresponding NERC
standards. NAESB's standards are voluntary standards, which become
mandatory for public utilities upon incorporation by reference by the
Commission.

II. Discussion

    5. As discussed below, we propose to revise the Commission's
regulations at 18 CFR 38.1(b)) to remove the standard WEQ-006 governing
the business practices for Time Error Correction. NAESB approved this
removal on December 8, 2017. We also propose to incorporate
corresponding modifications to WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and
Definition of Terms Business Practice Standards, which were adopted by
NAESB on that same date.
    6. The WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms
standards define the terms used throughout the WEQ Business Practice
Standards. Consistent with NAESB's removal of Standard WEQ-006 from the
WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards, NAESB also deleted the
terms ``Time Error'' and ``Time Error Correction'' from the WEQ-000
standards as well as making other minor

corrections to defined terms unrelated to time error correction.
    7. The WEQ-006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice
Standards defines the commercial based procedures to be used for
reducing time error to within acceptable limits of true time. However,
NERC and NAESB are both in agreement that it is now appropriate to
retire these standards. NERC decided to retire the Reliability Standard
BAL-004-0 (Time Error Correction), since the standard does not
materially support reliability of the Bulk Power System and has been
superseded by newer standards since Order No. 693,\5\ rendering
Reliability Standard BAL-004-0 redundant. NERC took the first step in
accomplishing this by submitting for Commission approval a revision to
Reliability Standards BAL-004-0 to retire the standard but reserves the
title of the standard as a placeholder. The Commission approved this
NERC action in a letter order issued in Docket No. RD17-1-000 on
January 18, 2017. After the Commission's approval of NERC's retirement
of Reliability Standards BAL-004-0, NAESB submitted a parallel revision
to the WEQ Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards in which it
retired and reserved all the standards contained in Standard WEQ-006,
although NAESB retained the standard number WEQ-006 and the title
``Manual Time Error Correction.'' \6\ NAESB also made corresponding
revisions to the definitions in Standard WEQ-000. Since NAESB has
retired all of the standards governing Manual Time Error Correction,
the Commission proposes to remove the NAESB standard WEQ-006 from its
incorporation by reference, and to adopt NAESB's revisions to its
definitions to ensure consistency between the NERC and NAESB standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, PP 382-386, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007). Since issuance of
Order No. 693 in 2007, NERC has periodically updated and revised its
reliability standards. The standards were most recently updated on
July 3, 2018.
    \6\ NERC replaced the manual time error correction standard with
a guideline for automatic time error correction that would manage
continued adherence to a frequency approximating 60 Hertz (Hz) over
long-term averages. NAESB did not receive a request to adopt, and
has not adopted, any business practice standards to complement
NERC's automatic time error guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation

    8. We do not propose to require public utilities to make filings
upon adoption of this proposal to implement the removal of WEQ-006
Manual Time Error Correction. We generally require public utilities to
make compliance filings revising their tariffs to acknowledge their
responsibility to comply with the revised standards or include a
provision in their tariffs stating that they will comply with the
latest version of the NAESB business practice standards as incorporated
by reference by the Commission.\7\ Because we are only proposing to
remove a single standard, we see no necessity for those utilities that
make tariff filings to incorporate NAESB standards upon adoption of
this proposal. Such filings can be made after the Commission addresses
the remainder of the standards included in WEQ Version 003.2 of the
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-H, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,359, at P 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    9. The retirement and reservation of the NAESB WEQ-006 Manual Time
Error Correction Business Practice Standards was adopted by NAESB under
NAESB's consensus procedures.\8\ As the Commission found in Order No.
676, adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the
consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by
requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of all
segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry itself has to
conduct business under these standards, the Commission's regulations
should reflect those standards that have the widest possible support.
In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995, Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use
technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards
organizations, like NAESB, as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under this process, to be approved a standard must receive a
super-majority vote of 67 percent of the members of the WEQ's
Executive Committee with support from at least 40 percent from each
of the five industry segments--transmission, generation, marketer/
brokers, distribution/load serving entities, and end users. For
final approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's general membership must
ratify the standards.
    \9\ Public Law 104-113, 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 U.S.C.
272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11)
(February 10, 1998) provides that Federal Agencies should publish a
request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or
revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard
or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is
proposing to incorporate by reference NAESB's revised WEQ-006 Manual
Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards, which retire and
``reserve'' these standards.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    11. The Office of the Federal Register requires agencies
incorporating material by reference in final rules to discuss, in the
preamble of the final rule, the ways that the materials it incorporates
by reference are reasonably available to interested parties and how
interested parties can obtain the materials.\10\ The regulations also
require agencies to summarize, in the preamble of the final rule, the
material it incorporates by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 1 CFR 51.5. See Incorporation by Reference, 79 FR 66267
(Nov. 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Prior to NAESB's adoption of the WEQ Version 003.2 Business
Practice Standards, earlier iterations of the NAESB WEQ-006 Manual Time
Error Correction Business Practice Standards defined the commercial
procedures to be used for reducing time error to keep the system's time
within acceptable limits of true time. However, in the latest version
of this standard (the version of Standard WEQ-006 appearing in the WEQ
Version 003.2 Business Practice Standards) NAESB has retired and
eliminated these standards. And in this NOPR, we propose to incorporate
by reference the version of these standards that retires and reserves
Standard WEQ-006.
    13. We also propose in this NOPR to incorporate by reference the
revised WEQ-000 that deletes the definitions of the terms ``Time
Error'' and ``Time Error Correction'' as well as making other minor
corrections to defined terms unrelated to time error correction. The
WEQ-000 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms Business
Practice Standards provide a single location for all abbreviations,
acronyms, and defined terms referenced in the WEQ Business Practice
Standards. These standards provide common nomenclature for terms within
the wholesale electric industry, reducing confusion and opportunities
for misinterpretation or misunderstandings among industry participants.
    14. Our regulations provide that copies of the NAESB standards
incorporated by reference may be obtained from the North American
Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX
77002, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. NAESB's website is located at http://

www.naesb.org/. Copies of the standards may be inspected at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance
Branch, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Phone: (202) 502-
8371, http://www.ferc.gov.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 18 CFR 284.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that develops
voluntary wholesale and retail standards related to the energy
industry. The procedures used by NAESB make its standards reasonably
available to those affected by the Commission regulations, which
generally is comprised of entities that have the means to acquire the
information they need to effectively participate in Commission
proceedings.\12\ NAESB provides a free electronic read-only version of
the standards for a three business day period or, in the case of a
regulatory comment period, through the end of the comment period.\13\
Participants can join NAESB, for an annual membership cost of $7,000,
which entitles them to full participation in NAESB and enables them to
obtain these standards at no additional cost.\14\ Non-members may
obtain a complete set of Standards Manuals, Booklets, and Contracts on
CD for $2,000 and the Individual Standards Manual or Booklets for each
standard by email for $250 per manual or booklet.\15\ In addition,
NAESB considers requests for waivers of the charges on a case by case
basis based on need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As a private, consensus standards developer, NAESB needs
the funds obtained from its membership fees and sales of its
standards to finance the organization. The parties affected by these
Commission regulations generally are highly sophisticated and have
the means to acquire the information they need to effectively
participate in Commission proceedings.
    \13\ Procedures for non-members to evaluate work products before
purchasing are available at https://www.naesb.org/misc/NAESB_Nonmember_Evaluation.pdf. See Incorporation by Reference, 79
FR at 66271, n.51 & 53 (Nov. 7, 2014) (citing to NAESB's procedure
of providing ``no-cost, no-print electronic access,'' NAESB Comment
at 1, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OFR-2013-0001-
0023).
    \14\ North American Energy Standards Board Membership
Application, https://www.naesb.org/pdf4/naesbapp.pdf.
    \15\ NAESB Materials Order Form, https://www.naesb.org//pdf/ordrform.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Information Collection Statement

    16. The collection of information contained in this proposed rule
is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3507(d).\16\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\17\ Upon approval of a
collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of
this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the
collection of information unless the collection of information displays
a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \17\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for
this information, whether the information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the
use of automated information techniques. We propose that the
requirement to make compliance tariff filings (included in FERC-516)
for the WEQ-006 Business Practice Standards be deferred until final
action is taken by the Commission on the entirety of the WEQ Version
003.2 Business Practice Standards for those who continue to opt to
specify a specific version of the standards in their tariffs.
Therefore, changes to the burden and cost of the FERC-516 (Electric
Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings, OMB Control No. 1902-0096) are not
being proposed at this time.
    18. The following estimates for burden and cost \18\ are based on
the projected savings due to the retirement and reservation of the WEQ-
006 Manual Time Error Correction Business Practice Standards, as
adopted by NAESB and proposed to be incorporated by reference in this
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission staff estimates that industry is similarly
situated in terms of hourly cost (for wages plus benefits). Based on
the Commission's FY (Fiscal Year) 2018 average cost (for wages plus
benefits), $79.00/hour is used.

                         Proposed Burden Reduction in NOPR in Docket No. RM05-5-026 \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                  Number of     Annual number   Total number    Average burden    burden hrs. &
                                 respondents    of responses    of responses     (hrs.) & cost     total annual
                                               per respondent                  ($) per response      cost ($)
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).............  (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-717 20 21 (retirement of             170               1             170  1 hr.; $79        170 hours;
 WEQ-006 Time Error                                                             (reduction).      $13,430
 Correction Standard).                                                                            (reduction).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-717, Open Access Same Time Information System and
Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public
Utilities.
    Action: Proposed revision (reduction) to an existing collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0173.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As noted above, changes to the FERC-516 are not proposed at
this time.
    \20\ FERC-717 (OMB Control No. 1902-0173) identifies the
information collection associated with Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities. We
estimate that the proposed retirement in this docket of WEQ-006 will
reduce burden for each respondent by 1 hour.
    \21\ This burden for FERC-717 was originally included in Order
676-H. At that time, we had an estimate of 132 respondents. Due to
normal industry fluctuation (e.g., companies merging or splitting,
going into or leaving the industry), the number of respondents is
now 170.
    In Order 676-H (issued 9/18/2014), the estimated average hourly
wage (plus benefits) was $72.67. For the calculations here, we are
using today's estimated hourly cost of $79.00/hour, as noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    19. Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule, if
implemented would update the Commission's current business practice and
communication standards to retire and remove Standard WEQ-006 on Manual
Time Error Correction to be consistent with NERC's retirement of the
corresponding reliability standard for Time Error Correction. In
addition, we are also proposing to incorporate by reference the revised
Standard WEQ-000 (Version 003.2) that deletes the definitions of

``Time Error'' and ``Time Error Correction'', as well as making
unrelated minor corrections to the standard.
    20. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the revised
business practice standards and has made a preliminary determination
that the proposed revisions that we propose here to incorporate by
reference are both necessary and useful. In addition, the Commission
has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimate associated with the
information requirements.
    21. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426 [Attn: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: (202)
502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    22. Comments concerning the information collection proposed for
revision in this NOPR and the associated burden estimate should be sent
to the Commission in this docket, and by email to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the
following email address: [email protected]. Please refer to
OMB Control No. 1902-0173 in your submittal to OMB.

VII. Environmental Analysis

    23. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\22\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\23\ The actions proposed here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of electric power that requires no construction of
facilities.\24\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary
and has not been prepared in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \23\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \24\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \25\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It
only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to
small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for
electric utilities is based on the number of employees, including
affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some transmission owners will fall
under the following category and associated size threshold: Electric
bulk power transmission and control, at 500 employees.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121
(Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The Commission estimates that 5 of the 170 respondents (or 3%)
are small. The Commission estimates that the impact on each entity
(large and small) is a proposed reduction or savings of $79.00 (or one
hour).
    27. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that
implementation of the proposed Business Practice Standards will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

IX. Comment Procedures

    28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due November 13, 2018. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM05-5-026 and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    29. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

X. Document Availability

    32. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    33. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    34. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 38

    Incorporation by reference, Conflicts of interest, Electric power
plants, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: October 4, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
part 38, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 38--STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  38.1, by revising paragraph (b)(1) and removing and
reserving paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
    (b) * * *
    (1) WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms
(Version 003.2, Dec. 8, 2017);
* * * * *
    (7) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-22074 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36770]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-422-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Informal Settlement
Conference

June 20, 2006.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened
in this proceeding commencing at 9 a.m. (EST) on June 28, 2006, at the
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Hearing Room 1, Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring
the possible settlement of the above-referenced dockets.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 additional information, please contact Hollis Alpert,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-8783.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10158 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Sodium Cyanide: WOE Comparison Of Human And Animal Studies WILLIAM DYKSTRA, PH. D.

U. S. EPA OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS APRIL 5, 2006 2 Registered Product Registered Product  Sodium Cyanide ( NaCN)

 Formulation ° Granular containing 98% NaCN as the active ingredient ( ai)

 Application ° Post harvest fumigant applied to citrus 3 Regulatory Statute Regulatory Statute  Tolerances are established in the 40 CFR 180.130 for hydrogen Cyanide ( HCN) in/ on citrus at 50 ppm ( 50 mg of HCN per Kg of citrus) 4 Chronic Reference Dose (

Chronic Reference Dose ( RfD RfD)

Chronic reference dose ( RfD) for HCN  Located in the agency's Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) database  Suitable for assessment of chronic dietary risks ° Based on the No Observed Adverse Effect Level ( NOAEL)

of 10 mg/ kg bw/ day in a 2 year rat feeding study ° Established at 0.02 mg/ kg bw/ day. 5 HCN Dosage HCN Dosage

Extremely and acutely toxic to humans by the oral route

Fatal dose in humans  Estimated to be 1.0 mg/ kg bw ( FDA, 1956)

Lowest fatal dose in humans  Estimated to be 0.56 mg/ kg bw ( Gettler and Baine,

1938)

 Subject found in a coma 6 Determination of Dietary Risk Determination of Dietary Risk 70 kg person 1 average orange ( 160 g) ( including peel)

50 ppm HCN tolerance level Corresponding dose 0.1 mg/ kg bw =

1/ 10 of a fatal dose in humans 7 Clinical Trials Clinical Trials

The HCN team was not able to identify any studies in laboratory animals suitable for assessment of acute dietary risks, but they did identify the potentially useful clinical trial on:

AMYGDALIN ( Laetrile) 8 Laetrile Human Studies Laetrile Human Studies

Cancer treatments  National Cancer Institute decided to conduct a large definitive study of Laetrile 9 Laetrile Human Studies Laetrile Human Studies  Clinical trial  178 cancer patients were treated with Amygdalin ( Laetrile) plus a " metabolic therapy" 10 Details of the Study Details of the Study

Intravenous dose for 21 days

Orally at a dose of 0.5 g ( 3X) daily at the standard regimen Or Orally at 0.5 g ( 4X) times daily at the high dose regimen  Improvement of malignant disease Or Severe clinical deterioration 11 Cyanide Affects Cyanide Affects

Amygdalin releases HCN upon enzymatic action of beta glucosidase in the GI tract  High levels of blood cyanide  Clinical signs and symptoms of nausea,

vomiting, headaches, dizziness, and mental obtundation. 12 Cyanide Toxicity Cyanide Toxicity

Symptoms of cyanide toxicity seen following oral exposure, or intravenous therapy, were enhanced when two 0.5 g oral doses were taken at the same time, or shortly apart, to compensate for a missed dose.

 The single dose of 0.5 g of Amygdalin was determined to be a " minimally toxic" dose  The double dose was generally regarded as " toxic"

( Moertel et al, 1982) 13 Mode of Action Mode of Action  Cyanide competitively inhibits the enzyme cytochrome oxidase in the electron transport system of the mitochondria and prevents utilization of cellular oxygen 14 Laetrile Study Laetrile Study

Oral dose of Amygdalin  0.5 g ( 500 mg) administered 3 or 4 times daily  The single dose of 500 mg of Amygdalin has the potential to release 30 mg of HCN or 0.4 mg HCN/ kg bw for a 70 kg person 15 Additional Human Data Additional Human Data

The Quarterly Report of the Association of Food and Drug Officials by A. J. Lehman ( FDA, 1956).

 Total oral dose of 20 to 30 mg sodium cyanide or 0.2 mg HCN/ kg bw administered to demonstrate thiocyanate in saliva without apparent adverse effect

Lack of data 16 Selection of Selection of RfD RfD

Comparison of the acute LD50 studies in animals  Range from 2 8 mg CN/ kg bw ( ATSDR, 2004)

 Chronic study NOAEL of 10 mg/ kg bw/ day  Cyanide is much more hazardous when administered all at once rather than throughout the day due to metabolism to thiocyanate 17 Comparison to Animal Studies Comparison to Animal Studies

Comparing the animal LD50s of 2 8 mg CN/ kg bw with fatal human doses of 1 mg/ kg bw,

The cyanide review ( WHO, 2004) suggests that humans may be less able than rodents to detoxify cyanide because of lower concentrations of sulfur donors in humans. 18 Dose Selection Dose Selection  Limitations of the clinical study on amygdalin  OPP's HCN risk assessment team concluded:

° Oral administration of 500 mg of amygdalin,

equivalent to 30 mg of HCN or approximately 0.4 mg/ kg bw HCN provided a reasonable basis to assess acute dietary risks from ingestion of citrus containing residues of HCN. 19 Team Recommendations Team Recommendations

The equivalent lowest observed

adverseeffect level ( LOAEL) of 0.4 mg HCN/ kg bw with uncertainty factors of 10x for intraspecies variations

A second factor of 10x to account for:

 Severity of effect, steepness of dose response  500 mg amygdalin per administration was a minimal effect level and not a NOAEL. 20 Comparison to Endpoints Comparison to Endpoints

The acute RfD is 0.4 mg/ kg bw ÷ 100 = 0.004 mg/ kg bw

The acute RfD is 1/ 5 that of the chronic RfD in IRIS

The acute RfD is 250x less than the reported fatal dose in humans of approximately 1 mg/ kg bw ( FDA, 1956)

140x less than the lowest fatal dose in humans of 0.56 mg/ kg bw ( Gettler and Baine, 1938)

50x less than the unsubstantiated NOAEL for CN in humans of 0.2 mg/ kg bw ( FDA, 1956).

HED scientists believe that use of the acute RfD is appropriate whenever cyanide exposure is expected to occur all at once. 21 HCN Charge to the HSRB HCN Charge to the HSRB

The Agency's WOE document describes a lack of data appropriate for developing an acute dietary risk assessment for hydrogen cyanide. The WOE and DER present the results from a clinical trial with amygdalin and the usefulness of this clinical trial in the acute dietary risk assessment for hydrogen cyanide. The Agency has concluded that the clinical trial is appropriate for establishing a point of departure in the acute dietary risk assessment for hydrogen cyanide.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion.


41989 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules Docket No. OW   2003   0002. See Unit C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the March 12, 2003, Federal Register notice for the proposed rule ( 68 FR 11771   11772) and Unit I. B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the March 12, 2003, Federal Register notice for the NODA ( 68 FR 11791   11792) for additional ways to submit comments and more detailed instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Telliard; Engineering and Analysis Division ( 4303T); Office of Science and Technology; Office of Water; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460, or call ( 202) 566   1061 or E mail at telliard. william@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background EPA's method detection limit ( MDL) and minimum level of quantitation ( ML) are used to define analytical method ( test) sensitivity under the Clean Water Act ( CWA). In February 2003, EPA's Office of Water completed an assessment of detection and quantitation concepts and their application under CWA programs. On March 12, 2003, EPA published a document ( 68 FR 11791) making available for public comment an assessment document entitled `` Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts'' ( EPA 821   R   03   005, February 2003). On the same date, EPA also published proposed revisions to the current EPA procedure for determining test sensitivity under EPA's CWA programs ( available at 40 CFR part 136, appendix B) ( 68 FR 11770). The proposed revisions include clarifications and improvements based on the assessment of the MDL, ML, and other approaches for defining test sensitivity; peer review of the assessment; and stakeholder comments on the existing MDL procedure. The 120 day public comment periods established for the proposed rule and NODA were scheduled to end July 10, 2003. EPA received a request to extend the public comment for the proposed rule period beyond that due date. In order to give the public enough time to review and comment on the proposed rule, EPA is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to August 15, 2003, for each of those documents. B. Reopening of Comment Period This document reopens the public comment periods established in the Federal Register issued on March 12, 2003 ( 68 FR 11770 and 68 FR 11791). In those documents, EPA requested public comments on the Agency's proposed rule and on the assessment document entitled `` Technical Support Document for the Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Concepts'' ( EPA 821   R   03   005, February, 2003). EPA is hereby reopening the comment periods to August 15, 2003. To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the March 12, 2003 Federal Register actions for the proposed rule ( 68 FR 11771   11772) and the NODA ( 68 FR 11791   11792). If you have questions, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this action.

Dated: July 9, 2003. G. Tracy Mehan, III, Assistant Administrator for Water. [ FR Doc. 03   17875 Filed 7   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0092; FRL   7301   5]

Aldicarb, Atrazine, Cacodylic acid, Carbofuran, et al.; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to revoke specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances for residues of the insecticides aldicarb, carbofuran, diazinon, and dimethoate; herbicides atrazine, metolachlor, and sodium acifluorfen; fungicides fenarimol, propiconazole, and thiophanate methyl; and the defoliant cacodylic acid. EPA determined that there are no reasonable expectations of finite residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs for the aforementioned pesticide active ingredients and that these tolerances are no longer needed. Also, this document proposes to modify specific fenarimol tolerances. The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) section 408( q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. Because all the tolerances were previously reassessed, no reassessments are counted here toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0092, must be received on or before September 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8037; e mail address: nevola. joseph@ epa. gov.

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 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 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. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. A. 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. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41990 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0092. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0092. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0092. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0092. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41991 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0092. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the proposed rule or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. F. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke? This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60   day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408( f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is proposing to revoke specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances for residues of the insecticides aldicarb, carbofuran, diazinon, and dimethoate; herbicides atrazine, metolachlor, and sodium acifluorfen; fungicides fenarimol, propiconazole, and thiophanate methyl; and the defoliant cacodylic acid because the Agency has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in or on the commodities associated with those tolerances, and therefore these tolerances are no longer needed. Also, EPA is proposing to modify specific fenarimol tolerances. The determinations that there are no reasonable expectations of finite residues for the tolerances listed in this document were made based on feeding studies submitted since the time that the tolerances were originally established. These feeding studies used exaggerated amounts of the compound and did not show measurable residues of the pesticides tested. The Agency originally made the determination that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues for the pesticide active ingredient/ commodity combinations listed in this proposal in memoranda of March 6, 2002; March 25, 2002; April 21, 2002; July 1, 2002; and July 23, 2002. Because there was no expectation of finite residues, in subsequent memoranda of May 3, 2002; June 3, 2002; July 11, 2002; and July 23, 2002, the Agency declared these tolerances as safe and counted these tolerances toward meeting the tolerance reassessment requirements listed in FFDCA section 408( q). Copies of these memoranda can be found in the public docket for this proposed rule. Because EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues, under 40 CFR 180.6 the tolerances are no longer needed under the FFDCA and can be proposed for revocation. 1. Aldicarb. Based on available ruminant feeding and storage stability data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of aldicarb and its carbamate metabolites in milk and livestock commodities. The associated tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.269 for the combined residues of the insecticide and nematocide aldicarb ( 2 methyl 2 ( methylthio) propionaldehyde O ( methylcarbamoyl) oxime and its cholinesterase inhibiting metabolites 2 methyl 2( methylsulfinyl) propionaldehyde O( methylcarbamoyl) oxime and 2 methyl 2 ( methylsulfonyl) propionaldehyde O( methylcarbamoyl) oxime in or on the following: cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, meat byproducts; and milk. 2. Atrazine. Based on available ruminant and poultry feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of atrazine in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs and poultry; and eggs. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.220 for residues of the herbicide atrazine in or on hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; and egg. 3. Cacodylic acid ( dimethylarsinic acid). Arsenic is ubiquitous and abundant in the environment. Studies show that arsenicals are methylated in animals to potentially significant levels of dimethyl arsonate. Also, available VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41992 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules data show that background levels of dimethyl arsonate ( cacodylate) found in beef tissues and milk may substantially exceed those incurred from the maximum theoretical dietary burden from ingestion of feed stuffs derived from raw agricultural commodities treated with cacodylic acid at the maximum supported use rates. Based on all these data, EPA determined that tolerances for residues of cacodylic acid in beef tissues and milk are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.311 for residues of the defoliant cacodylic acid ( dimethylarsinic acid), expressed as As2 O3, in or on cattle, fat; cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; cattle, meat; and cattle meat byproducts ( except kidney and liver). Furthermore, in order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.311, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance commodity terminology for `` cottonseed'' to `` cotton, undelinted seed.'' 4. Carbofuran. Based on available dairy cattle feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of carbofuran and its metabolites in fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.254 for the combined residues of the insecticide carbofuran ( 2,3 dihydro 2,2 dimethyl 7 benzofuranyl Nmethylcarbamate its carbamate metabolite 2,3 dihydro 2,2 dimethyl 3 hydroxy 7 benzofuranyl Nmethylcarbamate and its phenolic metabolites 2,3 dihydro 2, 2 dimethyl 7 benzofuranol, 2,3 dihydro 2,2 dimethyl 3, oxo 7 benzofuranol and 2,3 dihydro 2,2 dimethyl 3,7 benzofurandiol in or on the following commodities: Cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle meat byproducts; goats, fat; goats, meat; goats, meat byproducts; hogs, fat; hogs, meat; hogs, meat byproducts; horses, fat; horses, meat; horses, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts. 5. Diazinon. Based on available cattle dermal treatment and feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in or on meat and meat byproducts from the registered uses of cattle ear tags or from consumption of diazinon treated feed items by cattle. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). A tolerance for milk is not required as long as the ear tag labels maintain that use is for beef cattle and non lactating dairy cattle, only. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153 for residues of the insecticide diazinon in or on cattle, meat ( fat basis) ( PRE S appli) and cattle, meat byproducts ( fat basis) ( PRE S appli). 6. Dimethoate. Metabolism and feeding studies in ruminants and poultry showed no detectable residues of dimethoate in muscle, fat, kidney, liver, milk, and egg samples. However, residues of omethoate, its oxygen analog, were found in liver and egg whites samples and residues of dimethoate carboxylic acid were found in liver, egg whites, and milk samples. Based on these available ruminant and poultry metabolism and feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of concern in meat, fat, and kidney of livestock ( ruminants and poultry) from ingestion of dimethoate treated crop and feed items. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204 for total residues of the insecticide dimethoate ( O, O dimethyl S( Nmethylcarbamoylmethyl phosphorodithioate) including its oxygen analog ( O, O dimethyl S( Nmethylcarbamoylmethyl phosphorothioate) in or on the following commodities: Cattle, fat; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat; hog, fat; hog, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat. Use of dimethoate on other commodities, including food and feed commodities, will be addressed in the `` Report on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decision'' ( IRED), which EPA will complete in the near future. Also, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.204 to remove the ``( N)'' designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice (``( N)'' designation means negligible residues). 7. Fenarimol. Fenarimol tolerances were reassessed according to the FQPA standard in the August 2002 `` Report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Fenarimol.'' The Agency extrapolated data from a 28   day ruminant feeding study of exaggerated dietary burdens to the 1X feeding rate, and examined the expected impact of the average theoretical dietary burden from wet apple pomace ( calculated using Food and Drug Administration monitoring data for apples). Of the currently registered uses of fenarimol, wet apple pomace is the only commodity considered a livestock feed item. ( Dry apple pomace is no longer considered a significant feed item). For cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency concluded from monitoring, feeding, and metabolism data that tolerances for liver should be effectively decreased from 0.1 to 0.05 parts per million ( ppm) and tolerances for meat byproducts should be increased from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm based on the highest residue found on an organ tissue; i. e., liver. Because both liver and meat byproduct tolerances were reassessed at the same level ( 0.05 ppm) for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency recommended covering residues in liver by the reassessed tolerances for meat byproducts, revising each commodity terminology to `` meat byproducts, except kidney,'' and revoking existing liver tolerances at 0.1 ppm since they are no longer needed. EPA issued a finding in this TRED that these revised tolerances are safe, as required by section 408 of FFDCA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the separate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421 for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in or on cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, liver. Also, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.421 to increase the tolerances for the meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, each from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm, and to revise their commodity terminologies to cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; goat, meat byproducts, except kidney; horse, meat byproducts, except kidney; and sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney. Expected fenarimol residues in muscle, fat and kidney are calculated from the 28   day data to be less than or near the enforcement method's limit of detection ( 0.003 ppm). Therefore, the Agency concluded that for muscle, fat and kidney of ruminants it is not possible to establish with certainty whether finite residues will be incurred, but there is a reasonable expectation of finite residues under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 2). While EPA reassessed fenarimol tolerances for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep in the TRED, including meat, kidney, and fat tolerances at 0.01 ppm, the method limit of quantitation, the Agency will address them in a Federal Register document to be published in the near future. In addition, the fenarimol tolerance for milk ( 0.003 ppm) should be revoked because residues in milk for dairy cattle are predicted to be significantly less than the enforcement method's limit of detection ( 0.001 ppm). Based on the available data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of fenarimol in milk and that the tolerance is no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41993 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules in 40 CFR 180.421 for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in milk. Moreover, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of residue transfer to livestock commodities via consumption of fenarimol treated crop and feed items because no feed items for poultry and hogs are associated with active fenarimol registrations. The tolerances for eggs, poultry, and hogs are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.421 for residues of the fungicide fenarimol in or on the following commodities: Hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, liver; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; and egg. Furthermore, in order to conform to current Agency practice, in 40 CFR 180.421, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance commodity terminology for `` pecans'' to `` pecan.'' 8. Metolachlor. Based on available ruminant feeding data and the maximum theoretical dietary burden for swine, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of metolachlor and its metabolites in fat, kidney, liver, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368 for the combined residues ( free and bound) of the herbicide metolachlor [ 2 chloro N( 2 ethyl 6 methylphenyl) N ( 2 methoxy 1 methylethyl) acetamide] and its metabolites, determined as the derivatives, 2[( 2 ethyl 6 methylphenyl) amino] 1 propanol and 4 ( 2 ethyl 6 methylphenyl) 2 hydroxy 5 methyl 3 morpholinone, each expressed as the parent compound, in or on hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, liver; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver. 9. Propiconazole. Based on available poultry metabolism and feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of propiconazole and its metabolites ( determined as 2,4 dichlorobenzoic acid) in poultry muscle, liver, fat, and egg samples from hens fed 10X the maximum theoretical dietary burden for poultry. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434 for the combined residues of the fungicide 1 [[ 2( 2,4 dichlorophenyl) 4 propyl 1,3 dioxolan 2 yl] methyl] 1H 1,2,4 triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4 dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound in or on poultry, fat; poultry, kidney; poultry, liver; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver; and egg. 10. Sodium acifluorfen. Label restrictions prohibit use of sodium acifluorfen treated peanut and soybean forage or hay for feed and grazing livestock on these treated crops. There is no reasonable expectation of residues being transferred to livestock commodities via consumption of feed items derived from crops treated with sodium acifluorfen according to current use directions. Based on the registered food/ feed use patterns, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of sodium acifluorfen and its metabolites in kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep; fat, meat, and meat byproducts of poultry; eggs, and milk. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.383 for combined residues of the herbicide sodium salt of acifluorfen ( sodium 5[ 2 chloro 4 trifluoromethyl) phenoxy] 2 nitrobenzoic acid) and its metabolites ( the corresponding acid, methyl ester, and amino analogues) in or on the following commodities: Cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; goat, kidney; goat, liver; hog, kidney; hog, liver; horse, kidney; horse, liver; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, kidney; sheep, liver; egg; and milk. 11. Thiophanate methyl. Based on available ruminant and poultry feeding data, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of thiophanate methyl, its oxygen analogue, and benzimidazole metabolites in fat, liver, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs and poultry. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371 for residues of the fungicide thiophanate methyl ( dimethyl[( 1,2 phenylene) bis( iminocarbonothioyl)] bis [ carbamate]), its oxygen analogue dimethyl 4,4 o phenylene bis( allophonate), and its benzimidazolecontaining metabolites ( calculated as thiophanate methyl) in or on hog, fat; hog, liver; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts, except liver; poultry, fat; poultry, liver; poultry, meat; and poultry, meat byproducts, except liver.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? A `` tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 301 et seq., as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104   170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods ( 21 U. S. C. 346( a)). Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore `` adulterated'' under section 402( a) of the FFDCA. Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce ( 21 U. S. C. 331( a) and 342( a)). For a food use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA ( 7 U. S. C. et seq.). Food use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/ or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products ( for example, grain or hay) containing pesticide residues ( 40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that: 1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry and/ or eggs. 2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist. 3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities ( 40 CFR 180.6( b) and 40 CFR 180.6( c)). EPA has evaluated the meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this proposed rule and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of the listed pesticide active ingredients in or on those commodities. Regarding the proposed modification of fenarimol tolerances, EPA is required to determine wheter each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under the FQPA. A safety finding determination is found in detail in the August 2002 TRED for fenarimol. An electronic copy of the TRED for fenarimol is available on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41994 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules C. When do These Actions Become Effective?

EPA is proposing that these actions become effective on the day of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Agency has determined that most of the tolerances herein proposed for revocation are no longer needed, based on no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues. Therefore, the Agency believes that this revocation date allows users to continue utilizing existing pesticide stocks and that commodities treated with these pesticides in a manner that is lawful under FIFRA will continue to clear the channels of trade since there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues. Also, because fenarimol tolerances for liver, when revised would become duplicates covered by revised `` meat byproduct, except kidney'' tolerances, they are no longer needed as separate liver tolerances. In addition, because the modifications to increase specific fenarimol tolerances proposed herein are safe, as required by section 408 of FFDCA, the Agency believes that these modifications become effective on the day of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. If you have comments regarding the effective date, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?

By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of July 2, 2003, EPA has reassessed over 6,510 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a total of 105 tolerances, all of which were previously counted as reassessed. Therefore, none are counted in a final rule toward the August 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section 408( q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations?

The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U. S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits ( MRLs) in setting U. S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U. S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support ( 65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) ( FRL   6559   3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/. On the Home Page select `` Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,'' then select `` Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then look up the entry for this document under `` Federal Register   Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke and modify specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted these types of actions ( i. e., modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether raising of tolerance levels or revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses were published on May 4, 1981 ( 46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 ( 62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account these analyses, and the fact that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of the pesticides listed in this proposed rule will be found on the commodities discussed in this proposed rule ( so that the lack of the tolerance could not prevent sale of the commodity), I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41995 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 17, 2003.

Martha Monell,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

Authority: 21 U. S. C. 321( q), 346( a) and 371. § 180.153 [ Amended]

2. Section 180.153 is amended by removing the entries for cattle, meat ( fat basis) ( PRE S appli) and cattle, meat byproducts ( fat basis) ( PRE S appli) from the table in paragraph ( a)( 1).

§ 180.204 [ Amended]

3. Section 180.204 is amended by removing the entries for cattle, fat; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat; hog, fat; hog, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat from the table in paragraph ( a), and by also removing from the table in paragraph ( a) the ``( N)'' designation from any entry where it appears.

§ 180.220 [ Amended]

4. Section 180.220 is amended by removing the entries for egg; hog, fat; hog, meat byproducts; hog, meat; poultry, fat; poultry, meat byproducts; and poultry, meat from the table in paragraph ( a)( 1).

§ 180.254 [ Amended]

5. Section 180.254 is amended by removing the entries for cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts from the table in paragraph ( a).

§ 180.269 [ Amended]

6. Section 180.269 is amended by removing the entries for cattle, fat; cattle, meat byproducts; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat byproducts; goat, meat; hog, fat; hog, meat byproducts; hog, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat byproducts; horse, meat; sheep, fat; sheep, meat byproducts; sheep, meat; and milk from the table in paragraph ( a). 7. Section 180.311 is revised to read as follows:

§ 180.311 Cacodylic acid; tolerances for residues.

( a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the defoliant cacodylic acid ( dimethylarsinic acid), expressed as As2 O3, in or on the following raw agricultural commodity as follows:

Commodity Parts per million Cotton, undelinted seed 2.8 ( b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [ Reserved] ( c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [ Reserved] ( d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [ Reserved]

§ 180.368 [ Amended]

8. Section 180.368 is amended by removing the entries for hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, liver; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver from the table in paragraph ( a).

§ 180.371 [ Amended]

9. Section 180.371 is amended by removing the entries for hog, fat; hog, liver; hog, meat byproducts, except liver; hog, meat; poultry, fat; poultry, liver; poultry, meat byproducts, except liver; and poultry, meat from the table in paragraph ( a). 10. Section 180.383 is amended by revising the table in paragraph ( a) to read as follows:

§ 180.383 Sodium salt of acifluorfen; tolerances for residues.

( a) * * *

Commodity Parts per million Peanut ............................ 0.1 Rice, grain ...................... 0.1 Rice, straw ...................... 0.1 Soybean .......................... 0.1 Strawberry ...................... 0.05 * * * * * 11. Section 180.421 is amended by revising the table in paragraph ( a)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 180.421 Fenarimol; tolerances for residues.

( a) General. ( 1) * * *

Commodity Parts per million Apple ............................... 0.1 Apple, dry pomace ......... 2.0 Apple, wet pomace ......... 2.0 Cattle, fat ........................ 0.1 Cattle, kidney .................. 0.1 Cattle, meat .................... 0.01 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney .............. 0.05 Goat, fat .......................... 0.1 Goat, kidney ................... 0.1 Goat, meat ...................... 0.01 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney .............. 0.05 Horse, fat ........................ 0.1 Horse, kidney .................. 0.1 Horse, meat .................... 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney .............. 0.05 Pear ................................ 0.1 Pecan .............................. 0.1 Sheep, fat ....................... 0.1 Sheep, kidney ................. 0.1 Sheep, meat ................... 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney .............. 0.05 * * * * *

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1 41996 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules § 180.434 [ Amended]

12. Section 180.434 is amended by removing the entries for poultry, fat; poultry, kidney; poultry, liver; poultry, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver; poultry, meat; and egg from the table in paragraph ( a). [ FR Doc. 03   17730 Filed 7   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [ CC Docket No. 96   45; FCC 03   115]

Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document is being issued in order to ensure that enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support is targeted to the most underserved segments of our Nation. The Commission sought comment on the same questions present herein in the Tribal Stay Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks to bolster the record on how to define the geographic areas that are adjacent to reservations or are otherwise part of the reservation's community of interest, in a manner that is consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support to the most underserved segments of the Nation. DATES: Comments are due on or before August 15, 2003. Reply comments are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due on or before September 2, 2003. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) on the proposed information collections on or before September 15, 2003. ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, William F. Caton, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection( s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1   C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@ fcc. gov and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@ omb. eop. gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lipp, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, ( 202) 418   7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96   45, FCC 03   115, released on May 21, 2003. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was also released with a companion Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order ( Order). The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY   A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM), we seek further comment on potential modifications to our rules regarding availability of enhanced Federal Lifeline and Link Up assistance to qualifying low income consumers living `` near reservations.''

A. Discussion 2. We seek further comment on the proposals in the record to identify geographic areas that are adjacent to the reservations, consistent with the goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link Up to the most underserved areas of the Nation. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order, 65 FR 58721, October 2, 2000, the term `` near reservation,'' as defined by BIA at the time of adoption of the Twelfth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 47941, August 4, 2000, and codified in our rules in this Order, includes wide geographic areas that do not possess the same characteristics that warrant the targeting of support to reservations, such as geographic isolation, high rates of poverty, and low telephone subscribership. As several commenters note, this definition of `` near reservation'' incorporates many highly populated, urban areas across the Nation, including major cities such as Phoenix, Sacramento, Seattle, and Las Vegas. As set forth in the Tribal Stay and Order, we continue to find that using this definition of `` near reservation'' will not target enhanced Lifeline and Link Up appropriately. 3. We issue this FNPRM to obtain more detailed information on proposals contained in the current record, as well as additional proposals that may be more consistent with our goal of targeting enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support to only the most underserved areas of our Nation and that may impose fewer administrative burdens. For instance, USCC recommends excluding major metropolitan areas from the enhanced low income programs by excluding Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas ( CMSAs) from receiving enhanced low income support. Washington UTC suggests that enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support be provided in the entirety of any telephone exchange that contains all or any portion of a tribal reservation. In addition, Smith Bagley, Inc. ( SBI) proposes that a person qualify for enhanced Lifeline and Link Up benefits if he or she resides within 50 miles of a recognized Native American reservation and in a county that has a population density of no more than 50 persons per square mile. 4. We seek comment on data that addresses whether these proposed target areas share the same characteristics of reservation areas. For example, SBI fails to explain why it recommends choosing a population density of 50 persons per square mile. We seek record support regarding these issues. Moreover, the proposals of USCC, Washington UTC, and SBI may not adequately ensure that the enhanced Lifeline and Link Up support mechanisms are targeted only to those areas that share the same attributes as reservations. For example, we believe that these proposals may not exclude large cities from the definition of `` near reservation.'' We seek comment on how these proposals may be tailored to exclude such large cities. 5. We seek comment on how to minimize any administrative burdens raised by these proposals. For example, SBI proposes that the Commission produce and distribute maps outlining all areas that are within a 50 mile radius of a reservation in which the county contains less than 50 persons per square mile. We believe that the Commission may not be the appropriate entity to undertake such tasks because it has no particular expertise with regard to such mapmaking. In addition, we are not aware of any current map that contains all reservations as defined by the Commission. We seek comment on alternative sources for such maps. We seek comment on the feasibility of having prospective ETCs bear the cost and burden of producing their own maps showing the areas in which they request ETC designation.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 20 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYP1. SGM 16JYP1