Page 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM Date: February 5, 2002 SUBJECT: BEAD's Impact Analysis of the Seed Treatment Uses of Lindane on Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye, Corn, Sorghum, and Canola FROM: David W. Brassard, Senior Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Istanbul Yusuf, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Arthur Grube, Senior Economist David Widawsky, Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

TO: Mark Howard, Chemical Review Manager Betty Shackleford, Chief Reregistration Branch III Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

Peer Review Date: January 16, 2002 SUMMARY In response to a request for SRRD, BEAD conducted an impact analysis of the seed treatment uses of lindane on wheat, barley, oats, rye, corn, sorghum, and canola. Lindane seed treatments are applied to 9. 7 million acres of small grains, corn, and sorghum annually. Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, the primary seed treatment alternatives to lindane, are as effective as lindane but are costlier to use. There are no registered alternatives to lindane for oats and rye. Grower level impacts of cancellation of lindane seed treatments would be minor for all uses, except oats and rye where they are considered major due to an estimated 9 percent yield loss Page 2 without registered alternatives. Treatment cost increases, associated with the alternatives for the remaining crops average $1.45 per acre (or 0.8% of gross revenues). The total aggregate increase in treatment costs is $14 million. Total aggregate value of yield loss (on oats and rye) is $354,000 (Tables 1 and 3).

Lindane is not currently registered on canola but the registrant is seeking registration. The currently registered alternatives are equally effective for wireworm control and more effective for flea beetle control but are costlier to apply. The registration of lindane would result in an average cost savings to growers of $1.83 per acre (2% of gross revenues) which BEAD considers to be a minor gain.

GENERAL BACKGROUND ON LINDANE SEED TREATMENTS Approximately 142,000 pounds of lindane are applied annually to 9.7 million acres of small grains, corn, and sorghum. Lindane is applied at an average application rate of 0. 0147 pounds active ingredient per acre. The vast majority (98%) of lindane seed treatments are incorporated into the seed on farm; very little is incorporated into the seed by seed processors. Lindane is marketed as a seed treatment under trade names such as Agrox Premiere®, Germate Plus®, Isotox F®, and Kernel Guard®. Lindane treated seed is applied at planting time mainly for wireworm control. Lindane is relatively ineffective against seed corn maggot, seed corn beetle, and white grubs (Brassard and Grube, 1996). On corn, lindane is frequently formulated with diazinon to control these other insect pests and with fungicides (e. g. captan, carboxin, and maneb) to control seedling fungal diseases. On small grains lindane is frequently formulated with maneb, but is rarely formulated with diazinon. Lindane seed treatments are also applied for fire ant control on sorghum and the registrant has petitioned the Agency for registration on canola for flea beetle and wireworm control.

Wireworm damage to small grains, corn and sorghum is largely a problem in the northern wheat growing areas west of the Mississippi River. Wireworms require from 3 to 5 years to complete their growth and are most common in muck and other loose textured soils that were planted to grain crops in previous years. Wireworms attack the seeds and the portion of the stem below ground, often damaging or killing the growing point. Infested fields usually have spotty stands with significant reductions in plant population in some areas. BEAD's review of available data shows that untreated plots may experience yield losses of 0 to 18 percent relative to lindane treated plots.

This analysis estimates the economic impacts of cancellation of lindane quantitatively (revenue losses or cost increases in US dollars) and qualitatively (in terms of the effects of projected impacts on grower net revenues). The criteria for qualitative impact characterizations (minor: 0 3% loss in gross revenues, moderate: 3 7% loss, and major 7 20% loss) are adapted from Brassard and Grube (1998).

BEAD could only obtain prices for multiple active ingredient lindane products which contained diazinon and captan in addition to lindane. In contrast, alternative seed treatment insecticides are marketed only as single active ingredient products. In order to estimate the value Page 3 of the lindane component of the formulated product, BEAD prorated the cost by assuming that all active ingredients in the product had an equal value on a weight to weight basis.

WHEAT AND BARLEY Background About 62 million acres of wheat and 5. 8 million acres of barley are planted in the U. S annually (USDA 2001). Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas are the major wheat producing states and Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and Washington are the major barley producing states. Wheat and barley are relatively low cash value crops with gross revenues of $113 and $122 per acre respectively.

Lindane is applied to about 7 percent of U. S. grown wheat and barley for control of wireworms. Lindane is frequently formulated with maneb (for control of seedling diseases), but is rarely formulated with diazinon. The majority (96%) of lindane seed treatment on wheat and barley occurs on farm (Glogoza et al, 2001; Zollinger, 1996). One reason for this is that much of the seed is produced on farm (KSU, 1999). For this reason, most growers are not likely to purchase pre treated commercial seed if lindane is no longer available. Some thiamethoxam and imidacloprid products can only be applied by commercial seed treaters and therefore would not be useful as an alternative to lindane for many small grain producers.

Comparative Performance of Alternatives Imidacloprid (Gaucho®) and thiamethoxam (Adage®) are the primary alternatives to lindane. Review of two comparative efficacy trials for control of wireworms on wheat and three for wireworm control on corn lead BEAD to conclude that imidacloprid is as effective as lindane in controlling wireworms (at the rate of 0. 005 to 0. 01 lb ai/ cwt seed). In wireworm trials on corn, thiamethoxam is as effective as lindane and imidacloprid. Thiamethoxam is labeled for use on wheat at higher rates (0. 029 to 0. 052 lbs ai/ cwt seed) than imidacloprid, but in BEAD's opinion (based on available data) would be as effective as imidacloprid or lindane at the lower rates (0.005 to 0.01 lb ai/ cwt seed).

Economic Impacts of Cancellation Minor. In the absence of lindane, wheat and barley growers would substitute imidacloprid seed treatments and experience increased treatment costs of $0. 36 1. 71 per acre (0. 3 1. 5% of gross revenues) (Tables 2a and 3). At currently registered rates, thiamethoxam seed treatments would be prohibitively expensive ($ 8 to $14 per acre) and would not be adopted by growers (Table 2b). Assuming an average treatment cost increase of $1.035 per acre, the aggregate value of increased treatment cost is $5 million.

OATS and RYE Background Page 4 About 4. 5 million acres of oats and 1. 3 million acres of rye are planted in the U. S. annually (USDA 2001). California, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin are the major oat producing states and Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas are the major rye producing states. Oats and rye are relatively low cash value crops with gross revenues of $71 per acre. Additionally, only about 52 percent of oats and 25 percent of rye are harvested. The remainder is pastured, grown as a cover crop, or experienced a crop failure. BEAD assumed that all lindane treated acreage is harvested.

Lindane is applied to about 1 percent of U. S. grown oats and rye for control of wireworms. Lindane seed treatment on oats and occurs only on farm (Glogoza et al, 2001; Zollinger, 1996). Oats and rye are less susceptible to wireworm attack than wheat and barley (Glogoza, 2001).

Comparative Performance of Alternatives There are no registered alternatives for wireworm control on oats and rye. If registered, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam are likely to be as effective as lindane. BEAD's review of available efficacy data shows that lindane treated plots had 0 to 23 percent more plants than untreated plots. Assuming that the stand loss to yield loss ratio is the same as field corn, this translates to yield losses of 0 to 18 percent if wireworm populations are not controlled. (Brassard and Grube, 1996). BEAD estimates that growers with wireworm infestations would suffer an average yield loss of 9 percent if lindane were no longer available.

Economic Impacts of Cancellation Major. In the absence of lindane, growers may suffer a 9% yield loss which would be partially offset by a $0.77 per acre cost savings. Assuming that all lindane treated acreage is harvested, the total aggregate value of yield loss is $354,000 (Tables 1 and 3). These losses would be partially offset by a cost savings of $45,000 to net an aggregate impact of cancellation of $309,000 (or 0. 2% of the total US crop value) (Table 4). These impacts would be significantly reduced if imidacloprid were registered for use on oats and rye.

FIELD CORN Background About 80 million acres of field corn are planted in the U. S annually (USDA 2001). Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin are the major corn producing states. Field corn gross revenues average $256 per acre.

Lindane is applied at planting time as a seed treatment to about 6 percent of U. S. grown field corn for wireworm control. Lindane is relatively ineffective against seed corn maggot, seed corn beetle, and white grubs (Brassard and Grube, 1996). Lindane is frequently formulated with diazinon to control these other pests and with fungicides (e. g. captan, carboxin, and maneb) to control seedling fungal diseases. Lindane seed treatment on corn occurs exclusively on farm Page 5 (Buckley, 2002).

Comparative Performance of Alternatives Imidacloprid (Gaucho®), thiamethoxam (Adage®), permethrin (Kernel Guard Supreme®) and tefluthrin (Raze®) seed treatments are the primary seed treatment alternatives to lindane. Review of available comparative efficacy data for control of wireworms on field corn lead BEAD to conclude that imidacloprid and thiamethoxam are as effective as lindane in controlling wireworms (at the rate of 0. 05 lb ai/ cwt seed) but that permethrin and tefluthrin seed treatments perform inconsistently and are less effective than lindane some of the time.

Economic Impacts of Cancellation Minor. In the absence of lindane, growers would substitute imidacloprid or thiamethoxam seed treatments and experience increased treatment costs of $1.82 per acre (0.7% of gross revenues). The aggregate value of the increased treatment cost would be $8. 7 million.

SORGHUM About 9 million acres of sorghum are planted in the U. S annually (USDA 2001). Kansas and Texas are the major sorghum producing states. Sorghum is a relatively low cash value crop with gross revenues averaging $107 per acre.

Lindane is applied at planting time as a seed treatment to about 1 percent of U. S. grown sorghum for control of wireworms and suppression of imported fire ants .

Comparative Performance of Alternatives Imidacloprid (Gaucho) and thiamethoxam (Adage® , Cruiser® ) are the primary alternatives to lindane. BEAD was unable to locate comparative efficacy data for control of wireworms on sorghum. In the absence of suitable data, BEAD assumes that imidacloprid and thiamethoxam performance against wireworms on sorghum is about the same as what was reported in the field corn comparative efficacy studies. BEAD reviewed several non comparative studies for suppression of fire ants on sorghum and concluded that lindane and imidacloprid are equally effective in fire ant suppression. Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam also control chinch bugs, greenbug, and yellow sugarcane aphid on sorghum and their use against these pests has been shown to significantly increase yields by an average of 40 bushels per acre in moderate to heavy infestations (Brassard, 1994).

Economic Impacts of Cancellation Minor. In the absence of lindane, growers would substitute imidacloprid and thiamethoxam seed treatments and experience increased treatment costs of $3.70 4.69 per acre (3. 5 to 4.4% of gross revenues). Because these treatment cost increases are likely to be offset by increased yields due to control of chinch bugs and aphids, the overall impact of lindane Page 6 cancellation is believed to be minor. The aggregate value of the increased treatment cost is estimated to be $311,000.

CANOLA About 1. 5 million acres of canola are planted in the U. S annually (USDA 2001). Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington are the major canola producing states. Canola is a relatively low cash value crop with gross revenues averaging $90 per acre.

Lindane is not currently registered for use on canola in the U. S. Lindane is used on canola in Canada for wireworm and flea beetle control. Imidacloprid is currently applied to about 58 percent of US canola acreage; thiamethoxam is applied to about 2 percent of U. S. canola acreage. These materials are incorporated into the seed entirely by seed processors. Parsons (1998) evaluated 21 field trials comparing the performance of thiamethoxam with lindane and imidacloprid against flea beetle on canola in Canada. Parsons concluded that thiamethoxam was equal to or better than lindane in performance and provided longer residual activity than lindane (14 28 days vs 4 10 days). Brassard and Alsadek (1999) reviewed 27 comparative performance comparisons for imidacloprid and 14 for thiamethoxam and concluded that both materials effectively controlled flea beetles and achieved yield increases of 17 and 59 percent respectively over untreated controls.

Comparative Costs If registered, lindane seed treatments would cost about $3.67 per acre. Currently registered seed treatments cost about $5.40 to 8.40 per acre (weighted average is $5.50) but provide more effective control of flea beetles. Registration of lindane would provide growers a lower cost alternative to these materials for short term control of low to moderate flea beetle populations. If registered, BEAD estimates that 10 percent of the US canola crop (150,000 acres) would be treated with a resultant cost savings of $1.83 per acre (2% of gross revenues) or $274,500 nationally.

SEED TREATMENTS IN THE REGISTRATION PIPELINE Clothianidin, a chloronicotinyl insecticide, is currently in the registration pipeline for corn and canola. BEAD's review of efficacy data submitted by the registrant indicate that it is effective against wireworms, cutworms, seedcorn maggots, white grubs, flea beetles, and rootworms on corn and flea beetles on canola (Brassard, 2001). Acetamiprid, another chloronicotinyl insecticide, is currently in the registration pipeline for canola. Efficacy data submitted by the registrant show that it is equal to or more effective than lindane and imidacloprid for control of flea beetles on canola (Christian et al., 1999). Preliminary information indicates that these materials will cost about the same as imidacloprid and thiamethoxam.

REFERENCES Page 7 Brassard, D. W. 2001. BEAD Review of Clothianidin seed treatment on corn and canola. Internal Document. Biological and Economic Analysis Division/ OPPTS/ EPA.

Brassard, D. W. and J. Alsadek. 1999. BEAD's Review of Documentation Submitted by Gustafson and Bayer Corporation in Rebuttal of an Emergency Exemption Request for the Use of Thiamethoxam (Helix®) Seed Treatment on Canola to Control Flea Beetles. Internal Document. Biological and Economic Analysis Division/ OPPTS/ EPA.

Brassard, D. W. 1994. BEAD Review of Additional Information Provided by Gustafson and Gerald Wilde Regarding the Effectiveness of Imidacloprid in Controlling Chinch Bugs and Other Insect Pests on Sorghum. Internal Document. Biological and Economic Analysis Division/ OPPTS/ EPA, 3 pp.

Brassard, D. W. and A. Grube. 1996. Final Benefits Evaluation of the Use of At Plant Insecticides on Field Corn. Internal Document. Biological and Economic Analysis Division/ OPPTS/ EPA. 150 pp.

Brassard, D. W. and A. Grube. 1998. Using Economic Impacts to Qualitatively Characterize Grower Level Impacts in Agricultural Crops: The QBCM Model. Internal Document. Biological and Economic Analysis Division/ OPPTS/ EPA. 2 pp.

Buckley, M. 2002. Telephone Communication with David Brassard (1 18 01). Mike Buckley Associates, Lake Tahoe, CA, 775 832 3600.

Cress, D. 2001. Personal Communication with Istanbul Yusuf. Kansas State University.

EPA Proprietary Data. 2001.

Glogoza, P. A. 2001. Telephone Communication with David Brassard (12 6 01). Department of Entomology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 701 231 7581.

Glogoza, P. A., R. Zollinger, and M. McMullen. 2001. Assessment of Insecticide Use for Field Crops in North Dakota for 2000. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.

Dollarhite, G. 2001. Personal Communication with Istanbul Yusuf. Gustafson. 800 368 6130 KSU. 1999. Kansas Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1998 Wheat and Sorghum Pesticide Usage Summary. Kansas State University, Manhattan KS Parsons, J. 1998. Efficacy Review: Helix Seed Treatment for Canola. Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency. 10 pp.

USDA 2001. Agricultural Statistics 2001.

USDA. 1999 2001. Crop Profiles for Wheat, Barley, Oats, Corn, Sorghum, and Canola. Office Page 8 of Pest Management Policy, USDA, http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/

Zollinger et al., 1996. Pesticide Use and Pest Management Practices for Major Crops in North Dakota 1996. Table 4: On Farm Seed Treatment. North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND, http:// www. ag. ndsu. nodak. edu/ aginfo/ entomology/ ndpiap/ Major_ Crops_ GS/ 01table_ of_ c ontents. htm EFFICACY DATA REVIEWED:

Arthropod Management Tests: Vol 26: F31, Vol 25: F41, Vol 24: F30, Vol 23: 129F Barr, C. L., B. Drees, and B. Vinson. 1991. Evaluation of the Lindane Seed Treatment, Gammasan®, To Prevent Predation by the Red Imported Fire Ant on Sorghum Seed. Department of Entomology, Texas A& M University System, in: http:// fireant. tamu. edu/ research/ arr/ Category/ Site/ 89 91Pg06/ 89 91Pg06.pdf Christian, M. L. et al 1999. Reduced Risk and Organophosphate Replacement Rationale for Acetamiprid: Agricultural Uses. Rhone Poulenc Ag. Company, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, p. 250 253.

Jarvi, K. and T. Hunt. Insecticide Screening at Emerson, Nebraska in 2001. In Crop Watch Newsletter (October 12, 2001 issue), University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension, 4 pp.

Keaster, A., D. Hoffman, and M. O'Day. 1999. Insecticide Evaluations for Control of Wireworms in Corn. In Integrated Crop Management Newsletter, April 1999.

KSU. 2001. Efficacy of Some Common Wheat seed Treatments in Kansas 2001. Kansas State University Wheat Page Rice, M. 2000. Wireworms Part 1: Insecticides Evaluated in Missouri. Integrated Crop Management Newsletter, March 2000, p 19 20.

Gustafson. 2000. Wireworm Protection with Gaucho 480® Low Rate. Page 9 Table 1 Economic Impacts of Cancelling Lindane Seed Treatment Uses. Crop Lindane usage Alternatives Comparative Performance Economic Impacts of Cancellation acres/% treated pounds applied Grower level impacts**

Aggregate Impacts wheat barley 4,786,110 7%

89, 500 imidacloprid thiamethoxam Alternatives equally effective for wireworm control.

Minor Increased treatment costs of $0.36 1.71 per acre (0.3 1.5%

of gross revenues).

The aggregate value of increased treatment cost is $5 million (0.06%

of total US crop value). oats rye 58,120 1%

843 none registered Untreated plots may suffer a 9% yield loss relative to lindane treated plots.

Major Growers may suffer a 9% yield loss which would be partially offset by a $0.77 per acre cost savings.

The aggregate impact of cancellation would be $310,000 (0. 2%

of the total crop value). canola 0%

0 imidacloprid thiamethoxam Alternatives equally effective for wireworm control and more effective for flea beetle control.

Not Registered Registration of lindane would result in an aggregate cost savings of $1.83 per acre (2%

of gross revenues). These are likely to be offset by increased yields from superior flea beetle control from the use of currently registered alternatives.

Lindane is not currently registered on canola therefore there is no economic impact. Registration of lindane would result in an aggregate cost savings of $275,000 corn 4,772,700 6%

51, 688 imidacloprid thiamethoxam permethrin tefluthrin Alternatives equally effective for wireworm control.

Alternatives also control seed corn maggot, white grubs and flea beetles.

Minor Increased treatment costs of $1.82 per acre (0.7%

of gross revenues).

The aggregate increased treatment cost is $8. 7 million sorghum 91,950 1%

332 imidacloprid thiamethoxam Alternatives equally effective for wireworm and fire ant control. Alternatives also control chinch bugs and aphids Minor Increased treatment costs of $3.70 4.69 per acre (3.5 4.4%

of gross revenues) are likely to be offset by increased yields due to control of chinch bugs and aphids.

The aggregate increased treatment cost is $386,000. Page 10 all uses 9,

708,880 142,364 imidacloprid thiamethoxam Alternatives, when available, are as effective as lindane.

Average treatment cost increase of $1.45 per acre (or 0.8%

of gross revenues).

Aggregate treatment cost increase of 14 million. Aggregate value of yield loss is $354,000. *

criteria for qualitative grower level impact descriptions: minor:

0

3%

loss in gross revenues, moderate:

3

7%

loss,

major 7

20% loss in gross revenues (adapted from Brassard and Grube, 1998 Page 11 Table 2a.

Comparative Costs of Lindane and Imidacloprid Seed Treatments Crops Lindane Cost/ Acre Imidacloprid Cost/ Acre*

Increased Treatment cost/ Acre (using imidacloprid) Wheat/ Barley $0.99 $1.35 2.70 $0.36 1.71 Oats/ rye $0.77 N/ A ($

0.77) Canola**

$3.67 $5.40 $1.73 Corn $0.58 $2.40 $1.82 Sorghum $0.19 $4.88 $4.69 *

imidacloprid costs obtained from Gustafson, 2001 (personal communication establishing price of Gaucho® 480 at $1200 per gallon or $300 per pound active ingredient) **

assumes growers would use lower rate of imidacloprid on canola (higher rate costs $18.43/ acre treated) Table 2b.

Comparative Costs of Lindane and Thiamethoxam Seed Treatments Crops Lindane Cost/ Acre Thiamethoxam Cost/ Acre*

Increased Treatment cost/ Acre (using thiamethoxam) Wheat/ Barley $0.99 $7.91 14.03 $6.92 13.04 Oats/ rye $0.77 N/ A ($

0.77) Canola $3.67 $8.40 $4.73 Corn $0.58 $2.40 $1.82 Sorghum $0.19 $3.89 $3.70 *

Cost data was not available for most thiamethoxam uses.

Thiamethoxam costs for most uses were estimated by assuming treatment costs per pound active ingredient were the same as imidacloprid (i. e.

$300 per pound ai)

Thiamethoxam seed treatments are applied at higher rates on wheat and barley and would be significantly more expensive and unlikely to be used as alternatives to lindane. Prices for thiamethoxam on canola ($

8.40/ A)

are from :

http:// www. canola council. org/ cpc/

99report/ 180

181.pdf ;

cost given is the incremental cost (total cost minus the Page 12 cost of the seed and a fungicide =

$9.02 per acre for Eagle® seed treated with Benlate fungicide) Table 3.

Changes in Treatment Cost from Substitution of Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam Seed Treatments for Lindane Seed Treatment (or in the case of oats and rye,

substitution of no treatment). Crop Acres planted %

acres treated Acres treated Increased treatment cost/ acre Total increased treatment cost ($) Wheat/ barley 68,373,000 7%

4,786,110 $0.36$ 1.71 $4,953,238* Oats/ rye 5,812,000 1%

58,120 ($

0.77)

($

44,752) Corn 79,545,000 6%

4,772,700 $1.82 $8,686,314 Sorghum 9,

195,000 1%

91,950 $3.70$ 4.69 $385,730** Total/

Average 162,925,000 6%

9,708,880 $1.45 $14,070,034 *

assumes average treatment cost increase of $1.035 per acre **

sorghum treatment cost increases estimated by assuming equal adoption of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam seed treatments Table 4.

Economic Impact of lindane cancellation on oats and rye where there are no registered alternatives. Crops Acres Planted %

acres treated Acres treated %

yield loss Lost bushels Price/ bushel Value of crop loss Decreased treatment costs Economic impact of cancellation Oats 4,477,000 1%

44,770 9%

258,681 $1.05 $271,615 $34,473 $237,142 Rye 1,

335,000 1%

13,350 9%

33,242 $2.49 $82,771 $10,280 $72,492 Total/

Weighted average 5,812,000 1%

58,120 9%

291,923 $1.21 354,386 $44,752 $309,634 Page 13 Appendix Table 1.

Calculation of Lindane application rates Crop average seeding rate (lbs/ A)

Application rate/ unit Application rate/ A Source barley 90 2 oz 16.6% WP/ cwt 0.0187 Labeled rate of sorghum guard =

0.

02075 lb ai/

cwt oats 70 2 oz 16.6% WP/ cwt 0.0145 Labeled rate of sorghum guard =

0.

02075 lb ai/

cwt rye 70 2 oz 16.6% WP/ cwt 0.0145 Labeled rate of sorghum guard =

0.

02075 lb ai/

cwt wheat 90 2 oz 16.6% WP/ cwt 0.0187 Labeled rate of sorghum guard =

0.

02075 lb ai/

cwt corn 20 1.94 oz.

25% WP/ bushel 0.01083 Weighted average of labeled rate of Kernel Guard (2 oz/ bu)

and Agrox D L plus (1.8 oz/

bu), the two most commonly used productson corn.

Weights:

of 0.

705 for Kernel Guard and 0.

295 for Agrox D L based on usage data. sorghum 6. 5 3 oz 16.6%/ bushel 0.

003613 Sorghum Guard 3 oz 16.6%/ bushel =

0.031125 lb ai/ bu =

0.003613 lb ai/ A canola 4.5 2250 ml 68%/ 100 kg 0.069 labeled rate of Vitavax =

680g/ l =

68%

lindane Appendix Table 2.

Calculation of Lindane active ingredient costs Product Cost per pound product Lindane %

Diazinon %

Captan %

Cost per lb ai of lindane ($)

Prorated cost of lindane per lb ai** Kernel guard 28.54 25 15 15 114.16 51.89 Agrox DL 30.84 25 15 15 123.36 56.07 Weighted average*

29.22 25 15 15 116.87 53.12 *

Weighted average of Kernel Guard and Agrox D L plus (most commonly used products) (Weights:

0.

705/

0.295 based on usage data) **

estimated cost of the value of the lindane component of the formulated product. Assumes all active ingredients in product have an equal value on a weight to weight basis Page 14 Appendix Table 3.

Calculation of Lindane Chemical costs. Crop Application rate (lb ai/ A)

Cost per lb ai lindane Chemical Cost per acre Total Product cost Prorated cost of lindane only Total Product cost Prorated cost of lindane only barley 0.0187 $116.87 $53.12 $2.19 $0.99 oats 0.0145 $116.87 $53.12 $1.69 $0.77 rye 0.

0145 $116.87 $53.12 $1.69 $0.77 wheat 0.

0187 $116.87 $53.12 $2.19 $0.99 corn 0.01083 $116.87 $53.12 $1.27 $0.58 sorghum 0.

003613 $116.87 $53.12 $0.42 $0.19 canola 0.069 $116.87 $53.12 $8.06 $3.67 **

estimated cost of the value of the lindane component of the formulated product (which contain other active ingredients such as diazinon and captan).

Assumes all active ingredients in product have an equal value on a weight to weight basis Appendix Table 4.

Calculation of Lindane Usage Estimates. Crop Acres planted %

acres treated Acres treated Application Rate (lbs ai/ A)

Pounds ai applied Wheat/ barley 68,373,000 7%

4,786,110 0.0187 89,500 oats/ rye 5,812,000 1%

58,120 0.0145 843 Corn 79,545,000 6%

4,772,700 0.01083 51,688 Sorghum 9,

195,000 1%

91,950 0.003613 332 Total/

Average 162,925,000 6%

9,708,880 0.01466 142,364


[Federal Register: August 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 46615-46617]
[DOCID:fr21au07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[IC07-80-001, FERC Form 80]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

August 14, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and reinstatement of this information collection
requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as
explained below. The Commission received comments from two commenters
in response to an earlier Federal Register notice of April 16, 2007 (72
FR 18967-68) and has responded to those comments in the justification
that it is submitting to OMB. Copies of this submission were also sent
to the commenters.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by September
21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. as a point of

reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
7345. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings an original and 14 copies of such comments should be
submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should
refer to Docket No. IC07-80-001.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-Filing,'' and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-
502-8258 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should not be
submitted to this e-mail address.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in

the docket number field to access the document. For user assistance,
contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:
    1. Collection of Information: FERC Form 80 ``Licensed Hydropower
Development Recreation Report''.
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Control No. 1902-0106.
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and reinstate the
information collection for an additional three years.
    The FERC Form 80 has been revised to facilitate greater ease to
respondents in providing the information. As initially proposed, FERC
Form 80 was updated to eliminate data concerning the nearest city and
population, since FERC staff can access the information from other
sources. Second, FERC staff has clarified the definitions so
respondents have a better understanding of the information to be
provided. Third, resource data has been updated to include FERC
approved recreational sites. Fourth, a new field has been added so that
respondents can identify the method used for collecting the data.
    In response to the 60-Day Notice of April 16, 2007, commenters
proposed additional changes to the FERC Form 80. Specifically,
commenters requested the following changes to the collection:
    (a) To exclude recreational facilities that are not owned by the
licensee even if they are within the project boundary;
    (b) To change the report cycle from every six years to seven to 12
years;
    (c) To add a trail count as a means to gauge recreation facility
occupancy;
    (d) To add attendance records as a means to estimate use and
facility occupancy;
    (e) To clarify in the instructions the types of recreation visits
to include both public and private facilities;
    (f) To clarify wildlife and hunting areas so that it's clear
whether acres or areas are to be reported;
    (g) To define the terms ``commercial'' and ``private'' use
facilities;
    (h) To report picnic sites and commercial boat mooring areas as two
separate recreational resources; and
    (i) To eliminate recreational resources that occurs infrequently,
such as golf courses and playground facilities.
    Additionally, commentors have questioned the need for the following
data elements in the information collection:
    (a) Whether FERC approved facilities should include third party
resources within the project boundary that must be approved under the
standard land use article;
    (b) Whether total miles/acres of recreation areas are necessary;
    (c) Whether informal/dispersed camp sites should be included; and
    (d) Whether organizational camping areas within the project
boundary should be included.
    Both commentors questioned the Commission's estimate of 3 hours to
complete the information collection.

Commission Proposal

    The Commission proposes to adopt the following recommendations: A
trail count as a means to gauge recreation facility occupancy and the
addition of attendance records as a means to estimate use and facility
occupancy.
    With regard to the other recommendations, the Commission will not
adopt them for the following reasons:
    (a) The exclusion of recreational facilities that are not owned by
the licensee even though they may be within the project boundary.
    The goal of the Commission's policy on recreation is to develop the
project area in a comprehensive manner. Therefore the data collection
is designed to include information on all recreational facilities
located within the project boundary, including those provided by other
federal, state, and local agencies. Title 18 CFR Part 2.7 encourages
licensees to cooperate with other entities to provide recreation
opportunities. This cooperation and comprehensive approach to providing
recreational access at licensed projects not only provides a better
recreation experience, but also addresses impacts to environmental
resources in the area by not overlapping an area. The proposed revision
to the Form 80 includes a column that identifies which facilities are
parts of an approved recreation plan for the project as opposed to
those controlled by another entity.
    (b) Change the reporting cycle from every six years to seven to
twelve years. The FERC Form 80s are collected every 6 years to ensure
that recreation facilities are meeting the needs of the public. The
Form 80's are used on a regular basis as a tool to evaluate recreation
at the projects and the Commission believes 6 years is an appropriate
period of time to monitor use.
    (c) To clarify in the instructions the types of recreation visits
to include both public and private facilities.
    The recreation visits should include all recreation days at
projects at approved facilities, facilities provided by other entities,
and general access areas. It does not include visits to private or
residential docks or to facilities outside the project boundary.
    (d) To clarify wildlife and hunting areas so that it's clear
whether acres or areas are to be reported.
    These are areas within the FERC project boundary that can be used
for wildlife viewing and hunting.
    (e) To define the terms ``commercial'' and ``private'' use
facilities. The Commission does not distinguish between private and
commercial recreation facilities.
    (f) To report picnic sites and commercial boat mooring areas as two
separate recreational resources.
    We do not believe these types of resources need to be reported
separately. If necessary during a project specific review, we will
request these types of details from the licensee.
    (g) To eliminate recreational resources that occurs infrequently,
such as golf courses and playground facilities.
    We have eliminated or combined some facilities over previous Form
80s. We believe the facilities currently reported on the Form 80 are
representative of all recreational opportunities currently available at
hydropower projects. For example, golf courses are an important
recreational feature at projects throughout the southeast.
    In response to commenters' concerns of whether the following
information was necessary on the FERC Form 80, we provide the
following:
    (a) Whether FERC approved facilities should include third party
resources within the project boundary that must be approved under the
standard land use article.
    FERC Approved Resources means those facilities that are required in
an approved recreation plan or subsequent amendments or those
identified in an Exhibit E filed with the license and approved. It does
not include facilities approved as non-project uses of project lands
and water.
    (b) Whether total miles/acres of recreation areas are necessary.
    We use total miles/acres to determine the need for additional
facilities.
    (c) Whether informal/dispersed camp sites should be included.

    Informal/dispersed camping can be included in access areas.
    (d) Whether organizational camping areas within the project
boundary should be included.
    All recreation areas should be reported, not just public
recreation.
    (e) Underestimation of the reporting burden. Both commenters
believe the Commission has underestimated the amount of time it takes
to complete the Form 80 (3 hours).
    The Commission's estimate of the time to complete the Form 80s is
an average of its licensees ranging from large complicated projects
with extensive recreation to smaller less developed projects. In an
effort to minimize the burden to licensees, we have eliminated some
data fields where the information may be readily available from other
sources. Data collection can take place in conjunction with other
required monitoring or with other activities at the project such as
water quality or dissolved oxygen sampling or general maintenance of
the facilities.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the
sections 4(a), 10(a), 301(a), 304 and 309 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA). The authority for the Commission to collect this information
comes from Section 10(a) of the FPA which requires the Commission to be
responsible for ensuring those hydro projects subjects to its
jurisdiction are consistent with the comprehensive development of the
nation's waterway for recreation and other beneficial public uses.
    In the interest of fulfilling these objectives, the Commission
expects licensees subject to its jurisdiction, to recognize the
resources that are affected by their activities and to play a role in
protecting such resources. The information filed with the Commission is
mandatory.
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently
comprises 400 entities (on average) subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
    6. Estimated Burden: 1,200 total hours, 400 respondents (average),
1 response per respondent, and 3 hours per response (rounded off and
average time).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to respondents: 1,200 hours/2080 hours per
years x $122,137 per year = $70,464. The cost per respondent is equal
to $176 (rounded off).

    Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of sections 4(a),
10(a), 301(a), 304 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 797,
803, 825c and 825h.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16386 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62579-62580]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31332 Amdt. No. 3923]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 5, 2020. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97:

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 18, 2020.
Wade Terrell,
Aviation Safety Manager, Flight Procedures & Airspace Group Flight
Technologies and Procedures Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 5 November 2020

Koyuk, AK, Koyuk Alfred Adams, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1A
Durango, CO, KDRO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-A
Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Rgnl, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 4, CANCELLED
Waterloo, IA, Waterloo Rgnl, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 16D, CANCELLED
Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, Amdt 2
Chicago, IL, KMDW, RNAV (RNP) X RWY 22L, Amdt 1
Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 31C, Amdt 1
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, ILS RWY 22L
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 22L (SA CAT II), Amdt 7
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27L, ILS RWY 27L
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 27L (CAT II), ILS RWY 27L (CAT III), Amdt 32
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9L, Amdt 4
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27R, Amdt 4
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 22
Asheville, NC, KAVL, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Orig, CANCELLED
Asheville, NC, KAVL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig, CANCELLED
Asheville, NC, KAVL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig, CANCELLED
West Chester, PA, KOQN, VOR-A, Amdt 4B
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 3, Amdt 3
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 15, Amdt 4
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Amdt 3
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 33, Amdt 4
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 3, Amdt 1
Charleston, SC, Charleston AFB/Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 33, Amdt 1
El Paso, TX, El Paso Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 32E
El Paso, TX, El Paso Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 22, Orig-F
El Paso, TX, El Paso Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 22, Amdt 1B
Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-B
Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-B
Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 7A, CANCELLED

[FR Doc. 2020-21853 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7414-7417]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  2

February 5, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC09-36-000; EC09-37-000; EC09-38-000; EC09-39-000;
EC09-40-000; EC09-41-000; EC09-42-000; EC09-43-000; EC09-44-000; EC09-
45-000; EC09-46-000.
    Applicants: EDF Development, Inc., Constellation Energy Group,
Inc., Handsome Lake Energy, LLC.
    Description: Clarification of Applications of EDF Development, Inc.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090204-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 13, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-1435-017.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits Revised Sheet 5 et al. to
FERC Electric Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 9.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.

    Accession Number: 20090202-0543.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-989-007.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    Description: Non-Material Change-in-Status Report of Green Mountain
Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 02/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-2317-007; ER05-1469-001.
    Applicants: DTE East China, LLC, Metro Energy, LLC.
    Description: DTE East China, LLC et al. submits First Revised Sheet
1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 4.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2536-006; ER04-925-020.
    Applicants: Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Bank of America, N.A. and Merrill Lynch Commodities,
Inc. submits Joint Notification of Non-Material Change in Status and
Tariff Revisions.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-805-009.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to December 29, 2008 Filing of Updated
Market Power Analysis of Wabash Valley Power Association.
    Filed Date: 02/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-6-108; EL04-135-112; EL02-111-129; EL03-212-
125.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company, Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
et al. submits proposed revisions to the Joint Operating Agreement to
comply with the Commission's 11/21/05 Order.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090129-0225.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-717-010; ER04-374-011; ER05-721-010; ER06-
1334-007; ER06-230-007; ER07-277-005; ER07-810-005; ER08-1172-004;
ER08-237-004; ER99-2341-013.
    Applicants: Spring Canyon Energy LLC; Judith Gap Energy LLC,
Invenergy TN LLC; Hardee Power Partners Limited, Wolverine Creek Energy
LLC, Spindle Hill Energy LLC; Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC; Grays Harbor
Energy LLC; Forward Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC.
    Description: Spring Canyon Energy LLC et al. submits a notice of
change in status under market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-275-004.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Company submits report on
the status of NU's four major transmission project in Southwest
Connecticut and accounting information on the amount of construction
work in progress.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-615-002.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation's
Joint Quarterly Seams Report for the Fourth Quarter 2008.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090129-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-754-006.
    Applicants: Auburndale Power Partners, LP.
    Description: Amendment to Updated Market Power Analysis of
Auburndale Power Partners, LP.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090204-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-265-009; ER08-100-008; ER07-1215-008.
    Applicants: Sempra Energy Trading LLC, Sempra Energy Solutions LLC,
The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC.
    Description: Sempra Energy Trading LLC et al. submits notice of
change in status in compliance with the reporting requirements set
forth in Section 35.42 of the Commission's regulations and Order 652.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1137-003.
    Applicants: Lockhart Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Lockhart Power Company.
    Filed Date: 02/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1223-001; ER07-1202-002; ER07-1208-002; ER07-
1222-001; ER07-1246-002.
    Applicants: Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC, Wind
Capital Holdings, LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC, JD WIND 4, LLC.
    Description: John Deere Renewables, LLC submits Supplemental
Information to the 12/23/08 Request for Classification as Category 1
Seller and Compliance Filings.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090204-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-125-005.
    Applicants: Luminant Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Luminant Energy Company LLC submits supplemental
information to its Petition for Determination of Status as a Category I
Seller Pursuant to Order 697 filed on 6/30/08.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0692.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-649-007; ER07-758-009.
    Applicants: EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC; Birchwood Power Partners, LP.
    Description: EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC and Inland Empire Energy
Center, LLC submits Substitute Original Sheet 1 and 2 to FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, in compliance with FERC's Order 697-A.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0494.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1285-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets
Tariff, et al. in compliance with the Commission's 1/2/09 Order.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-207-001.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits modification to the
Transfer Agreement NSTAR and HQ Energy Services Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0541.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-438-000.
    Applicants: Discount Power, Inc.
    Description: Discount Power, Inc submits the Petition for
Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority, submitted
by Discount Power, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081223-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-455-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits supplement
to the December 22, 2008 filing of First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 49,
Long Term Power Sale Agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0491.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-585-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff and to the Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement, to become effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090130-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-589-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits amendment to the credit policy provisions of the CAISO Tariff
implementing the Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade project.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0451.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-590-000.
    Applicants: Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company.
    Description: Trans Allegheny Interstate Line Company submits
request for authorization to implement an incentive return on equity
for the replacement of autotransformers and the upgrade of associated
equipment at the Kammer Substation.

    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0450.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-592-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits a Notice of Cancellation of the Seams Operating Agreement
between Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc and
MAPPCOR.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0540.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-593-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits four executed interim
interconnection service agreements.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-0539.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-602-000.
    Applicants: Celeren Corporation.
    Description: Celeran Corporation submits notice of cancellation of
FERC Electric Tariff, effective 10/14/08.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-603-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporation.
    Description: The Toledo Edison Company submits Wholesale
Distribution Service Agreement with the Village of Holiday City, Ohio.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-632-000.
    Applicants: Connecticut Light & Power Company.
    Description: Connecticut Light and Power Company submits notice
cancelling the First Revised Service Agreement 104 by and between CL&P
and Lake Road Trust.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-633-000.
    Applicants: SWG Colorado, LLC.
    Description: SWG Colorado, LLC submits Notice of Succession
notifying FERC of a corporate name change, and to adopt, as their own
in every respect, the FERC Electric Tariff of Black Hills Colorado,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-634-000.
    Applicants: AIG Energy Inc.
    Description: AIG Energy Inc submits an notice of cancellation of
AIGEI's First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 1.
    Filed Date: 02/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-635-000.
    Applicants: Southern Operating Companies.
    Description: Southern Companies submits an amendment to Southern
Operating Companies, Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-636-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc et al. submits Notice of
Cancellation of Third Revised rate Schedule FERC 262 etc pursuant order
614.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-637-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company, Florida Power
Corporation.
    Description: Progress Energy, Inc submits proposed modifications to
the Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff of CP& L and FPC pursuant to
Order 676-C.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-638-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Operating Companies.
    Description: Xcel Energy Operating Companies submits Eighth Revised
Sheet 48-56 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 3.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-639-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits executed Service
Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Grand River
Dam Authority as Network Customer, et al.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-641-000.
    Applicants: Southern Companies, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative.
    Description: Southern Companies submits a network integration
transmission service agreement and the associated network operating
agreement by and between PowerSouth Energy Cooperative and Southern
Companies.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-643-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc requests
waiver of certain North American Energy Standards Board Wholesale
Electric Quadrant Standards adopted by the Commission in Order 676-C.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-644-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submits First
Revised Sheet 3 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 5, to
comply with Commission Order 676-C.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-645-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service submits amendments to
the AEP West Operating Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090203-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-650-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revised tariff sheets
of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090204-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES09-16-000.
    Applicants: The Detroit Edison Company.
    Description: Application of The Detroit Edison Company for
Authorization to Issue Securities.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090202-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-17-000.
    Applicants: ITC Great Plains, LLC.
    Description: Application of ITC Great Plains, LLC for Authorization
to Issue Securities Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090204-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 25, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.CNF020509.212
 [FR Doc. E9-3246 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P