[Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 48)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11313-11319]
[DOCID:fr13mr07-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-8286-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent for partial deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant
from the National Priorities List; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
its intent to delete the Peripheral Operable Unit (OU) and Operable
Unit 3 (OU 3), also referred to as the Offsite Areas, encompassing
approximately 25,413 acres, of the Department of Energy (DOE) Rocky
Flats Plant from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). Rocky Flats Plant means the property owned
by the United States Government, also known as Rocky Flats, Rocky Flats
Site, or Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS), as
identified in Figure 1. The Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the
Central and Peripheral Operable Units (Figure 2) which contain 1,308
and 4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3 (Figure 3) which contains
approximately 20,480 acres. The 3 referenced figures are available as

described below in the section entitled Docket.
    EPA bases its proposal to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant on the determination by EPA and the State of
Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), that all appropriate actions under CERCLA have
been implemented to protect human health, welfare and the environment
and that no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate.
    This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface
water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within
the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant. The Central OU
will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part
of this action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator
(8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand delivery: Rob Henneke, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal
business hours from 8 a.m.--4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, not
through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents and referenced figures in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the

index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials may be accessed
at the following locations during specified hours of operation. The
U.S. EPA Region 8 Docket Facility, EPA Technical Library, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by
appointment, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The DOE Rocky Flats Plant
Docket Facility is located at Front Range Community College, 3705 112
Avenue, Westminster, Colorado, 80030. The Rocky Flats Plant Docket
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 10
a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement
Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129; telephone number: 1-800-227-8917
or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Peripheral OU and
OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson and Boulder Counties,
Colorado, from the NPL and requests comment on this proposed action.
The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. EPA
identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public
health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those
sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed
by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of
the Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and Notice of
Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL (60 FR 55466
(November 1, 1995)). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), portions of
a site deleted from the NPL remain eligible for further remedial
actions if warranted by future conditions.
    EPA will accept comments concerning its intent for partial deletion
of the Rocky Flats Plant for 30 days after publication of this notice
in the Federal Register (FR).
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is
using for this proposed partial deletion. Section IV discusses the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant and explains how it
meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate to protect public
health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to
40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State,
whether any of the following criteria have been met:
    Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have
implemented all appropriate response actions required;
     Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate; or
    Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown
that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not
appropriate.
    A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede
EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities for portions not
deleted from the NPL. In addition, deletion of a portion of a site from
the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties

or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response
efforts. DOE will be responsible for all future remedial actions
required at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such
actions.

III. Deletion Procedures

    Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP has been met, EPA may formally begin
deletion procedures. The following procedures were used for this
proposed deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats
Plant from the NPL:
    (1) DOE has requested the partial deletion and has prepared the
relevant documents.
    (2) The State of Colorado, through CDPHE, has concurred with
publication of this notice of intent for partial deletion.
    (3) Concurrent with this national Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion, a local notice has been published in a newspaper of record
and has been distributed to appropriate federal, State, and local
officials, and other interested parties. These notices announce a 30
day public comment period on the deletion package, which ends on April
12, 2007, based upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register
and a local newspaper of record.
    (4) EPA has made all relevant documents available at the
information repositories listed previously for public inspection and
copying.
    Upon completion of the 30 calendar day public comment period, EPA
Region 8 will evaluate each significant comment and any significant new
data received before issuing a final decision concerning the proposed
partial deletion. EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary for each
significant comment and any significant new data received during the
public comment period and will address concerns presented in such
comments and data. The responsiveness summary will be made available to
the public at the EPA Region 8 office and the information repositories
listed above and will be included in the final deletion package.
Members of the public are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8 to obtain
a copy of the responsiveness summary. If, after review of all such
comments and data, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the
NPL is appropriate, EPA will publish a final notice of partial deletion
in the Federal Register. Deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant does not actually occur until a final notice of
partial deletion is published in the Federal Register. A copy of the
final partial deletion package will be placed at the EPA Region 8
office and the information repositories listed above after a final
document has been published in the Federal Register.

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion

    The following provides EPA's rationale for deletion from the NPL of
the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral OU and OU 3 and EPA's finding that the
criteria in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied.

Site Background and History

    The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE facility owned by the United States.
Rocky Flats is located in the Denver metropolitan area, approximately
sixteen miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, and ten miles south of
Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities include the Cities of Arvada,
Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado. The majority of the Site is
located in Jefferson County, with a small portion located in Boulder
County, Colorado.
    Rocky Flats Plant was proposed by EPA for inclusion on the CERCLA
NPL in 1984, and was added to the CERCLA NPL on September 21, 1989 (54
FR 41015, October 4, 1989). The EPA Superfund Identification Number for
Rocky Flats Plant is CO7890010526. The Site was proposed for listing
because activities at Rocky Flats resulted in the release of materials
defined by CERCLA as hazardous substances, contaminants, and
pollutants, as well as hazardous wastes and hazardous waste
constituents as defined by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA) and Colorado Hazardous Waste Act (CHWA). Contaminants released
to the environment from the activities at Rocky Flats have included,
but were not limited to: Radionuclides (such as plutonium, americium,
and various uranium isotopes), organic solvents (such as
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and carbon tetrachloride), metals
(such as chromium), and nitrates. Apart from the activities of DOE and
its contractors at the Site, there are no other known, significant,
human-caused sources of contamination at Rocky Flats.
    Two Operable Units (OUs) are present within the boundaries of the
Site: the Peripheral OU and the Central OU. The Central OU consolidated
all areas of the Site that required remedial actions, while also
considering practicalities of future land management. The Central OU is
not included within this proposed partial deletion action. The
Peripheral OU includes the majority of the Buffer Zone and was left
undisturbed. This land provided a security and safety buffer area
around the former manufacturing areas of the Site. Portions of the
Buffer Zone have been co-managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for ecological resources since 1999. Based upon the RCRA Facility
Investigation--Remedial Investigation/Corrective Measures Study--
Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site (RI/FS) Report, which included both a Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA) determined that
no action was necessary to protect public health, welfare or the
environment for the Peripheral OU. That decision was supported and
documented in the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Corrective
Action Decision/Record of Decision (CAD/ROD) signed by DOE, CDPHE and
EPA, Region 8 on September 29, 2006.
    OU 3 encompasses an area north, south, and primarily east of the
Peripheral and Central OUs. OU 3 was addressed under a separate CAD/
ROD, Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision Operable Unit 3, The
Offsite Areas Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site dated April
1997. The OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed by DOE, CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on
June 3, 1997 and determined that no action was necessary to protect
public health, welfare or the environment.
A. Peripheral Operable Unit
    The RI/FS Report was prepared in accordance with the Interim Final
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA. Because remedial activities at RFETS were conducted under
RCRA and CHWA, this RI/FS Report also met RCRA/CHWA requirements for an
RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS) Report.
References to CERCLA requirements were also intended to encompass RCRA/
CHWA requirements. For simplicity, the report is hereinafter referred
to as the RI/FS Report. The RI/FS Report, approved by EPA and CDPHE on
July 5, 2006, was the basis for development of the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site Proposed Plan that described the
preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan was the basis for the Final CAD/
ROD.
A.1 Description of the Peripheral OU Remedial Investigation
    DOE began more than 20 years ago to develop an extensive body of
documentation about the use of hazardous substances and the known or
suspected release of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats. Information
was gathered from an extensive review

of Rocky Flats operating records and contemporaneous documents. In
addition, interviews were conducted of persons with knowledge of Rocky
Flats operations and of events that did release or were suspected of
releasing hazardous substances. The information collected is organized
in the Rocky Flats Historical Release Report (HRR), originally
published in 1992, which has been periodically updated as investigation
and cleanup of the Site progressed. The final version of the HRR is
provided as Appendix B of the RI/FS report entitled FY2005 FINAL
Historical Release Report dated October 2005.
    Sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,
and surface water were extensively used to locate and measure hazardous
substance contamination at historical release locations and guide the
conduct and completion of remediation activities. Environmental
monitoring was performed under the auspices of a site-wide integrated
monitoring plan. Additional monitoring was conducted pursuant to
environmental permits, including the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit and the State of Colorado Air Quality
Operating Permit, issued to DOE and its contractors.
    Environmental data for Rocky Flats were collected in accordance
with agency-approved Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and
standardized contract-required analytical procedures. Approved Work
Plans and SAPs specified the use of EPA-approved sampling procedures
and analytical methods, data quality requirements, and data management
processes, and specified the appropriate data quality objectives.
Documented releases of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats include
radionuclides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganic compounds, and metals.
    Known or suspected release locations (primarily soil) were
delineated by 183 Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs), 146
Potential Areas of Concern (PACs), 31 Under Building Contamination
(UBC) Sites, and 61 Potential Incidents of Concern (PICs) (totaling 421
areas). The IHSSs, PACs, UBC Sites, and PICs were thoroughly
investigated and characterized, as appropriate, and accelerated
actions, including non-time critical removals, triggered by
contamination levels have been confirmed as completed and met response
goals.
    The nature and extent of contamination evaluations considered the
following environmental media: soil, groundwater, surface water,
sediment, and air. These evaluations were conducted to show the types
of analytes of interest (AOIs) remaining in the environmental media and
their extent at Rocky Flats following the completion of accelerated
actions. The purpose of identifying AOIs was to focus the nature and
extent evaluation on constituents that were detected at concentrations
that may contribute to the risk to future receptors and to show the
overall spatial and temporal trends of those constituents on a sitewide
basis. These evaluations identified 14 AOIs for surface soil, 14 AOIs
for subsurface soil, 19 AOIs for groundwater, 18 AOIs for surface
water, 5 AOIs for sediment, and 5 AOIs for air. The contaminant fate
and transport evaluation used information about the Site physical
characteristics, contaminant source characteristics, and contaminant
distribution across the Site to develop a conceptual understanding of
the dominant transport processes that affect the migration of different
contaminants in various Rocky Flats environmental media. The primary
focus was evaluating the potential for contaminants from any medium to
impact surface water quality. Evaluation of a contaminant's fate and
transport was based upon two criteria: (1) Does a complete migration
pathway to a potential receptor exist based on an evaluation of
contaminant transport in each environmental medium; and (2) is there a
potential impact to surface water quality based on an evaluation of
data at representative groundwater and surface water monitoring
locations in the creek drainages.
    The RI included a Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA). The CRA
consisted of two parts: Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The CRA was designed to provide
information to decision makers to help determine the effectiveness of
the accelerated actions and select a final remedy that is protective of
human health and the environment. The CRA evaluated the risks posed by
conditions at the Site to the anticipated future users (wildlife
workers and visitors) and anticipated future land use. The CRA did not
evaluate an unrestricted use scenario, but did consider an indoor air
pathway, if occupied structures were to be present at the Site in the
future.
    The Peripheral OU was determined to be unimpacted by hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants with the exceptions subsequently
discussed. A small portion of the Peripheral OU was impacted by Site
activities from a radiological perspective. For example, plutonium
exists above background in surface soil in small areas within the
Peripheral OU. A few sampling locations for plutonium within the
Peripheral OU exceed a level of 9.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g), which
corresponds to a 1 x 10-6 risk level for a wildlife refuge
worker. Of these few sampling locations, the highest result is
approximately 20 pCi/g. If that highest concentration of 20 pCi/g was
considered the average concentration over an appropriate exposure unit,
it would correspond to a risk of approximately 1 x 10-5 for
a resident, which would be in the middle of the CERCLA risk range
(10-6 to 10-4). These levels of radioactivity are
also far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for an adult rural
resident, which equates to the 25-millirem per year dose criterion
specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
A.2 Declaration Statement for the Peripheral OU CAD/ROD
    Based upon the RI/FS Report, which included both a Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA)
determined that no action was necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the environment for the Peripheral OU.
    The RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was in a state
protective of human health and the environment. The NCP provides for
the selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective
state and therefore, no remedial action for the Peripheral OU was
warranted. The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU was no action.
A.3 Peripheral OU Conclusions
    The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU meets the requirements of
CERCLA Section 121, and to the extent practicable, the NCP. The
selected remedy for the Peripheral OU is protective of human health and
the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements, and is
cost-effective. The selected remedy complies with applicable
requirements of the CHWA. No accelerated actions were taken in the
Peripheral OU, and no remedial action alternatives other than the no
action alternative were required to be evaluated for the Peripheral OU.
Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in
the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, no five-year review is required for this remedy.
B. Operable Unit 3 (Offsite Areas)
    The OU 3 CAD/ROD was prepared by DOE, Rocky Flats Field Office,
Golden,

Colorado, in April 1997, and was signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA Region 8
on June 3, 1997. The following is the basis for deleting OU3 and is a
part of the deletion docket.
    OU 3 was investigated and a remedy was selected in compliance with
the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order--Interagency Agreement
(IAG), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on January 22, 1991. The selected
remedy is also consistent with the Federal Facility Agreement and
Consent Order--Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA), signed by DOE,
CDPHE, and EPA on July 19, 1996.
    OU 3 is one of sixteen OUs at Rocky Flats identified in the 1991
IAG, and is the only one not located within the RFETS boundaries. The
1996 RFCA consolidated the original sixteen OUs into three OUs, but OU
3 remained separate, owing both to its unique geographic location and
to the fact that investigations and administrative activity for OU 3
were nearly completed when the 1996 RFCA was signed. OU 3 is comprised
of four Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs): Contamination of
the Land's Surface (IHSS 199), Great Western Reservoir (IHSS 200),
Standley Lake (IHSS 201) and Mower Reservoir (IHSS 202). IHSSs are
specific locations where hazardous substances, solid wastes,
pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents
may have been disposed of or released to the environment from Rocky
Flats at any time in the past.
B.1 Description of the OU 3 Remedial Investigation
    The selected remedy for OU 3 was no action. A Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA), including an HHRA and an ERA, was conducted as part
of the OU 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility
Investigation. The RCRA Facility Investigation/CERCLA Remedial
Investigation (RFI/RI) Report was completed in accordance with
requirements presented in the Interagency Agreement and specifically
identified in the OU3 RFI/RI Work Plan and addenda. The RFI/RI Report
evaluated human health risks based upon exposure to identified
Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and was reported as the probability of
an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to OU 3
contamination under recreational and residential exposure scenarios.
Assumptions regarding future land use provided the basis to calculate
human health risks for both IHSS 199 and for IHSS 200. No COCs were
identified in surface water samples collected from Standley Lake, Great
Western Reservoir, and Mower Reservoir.
    For IHSS 199, risks from both plutonium and americium were
calculated and were assumed to be additive. For IHSS 200, only the
risks associated with plutonium were calculated, as plutonium was the
only COC there. In both IHSSs, the highest contaminant concentration
was used in risk calculations. The RFI/RI Report also calculated
radiation doses that would be expected as a result of the recreational
and residential scenarios described in the OU 3 CAD/ROD.
    Excess lifetime cancer risk (that is, the incremental additional
cancer risk that is incurred through exposure to COCs at OU 3 or any
other contaminated site) is calculated by multiplying the average daily
chemical intake over a lifetime of exposure by the contaminant's
individual slope factor. For radionuclides, slope factors are the
average risk per unit intake or exposure for an individual in a
stationary population with mortality rates typical of those in the
United States in 1970. EPA guidelines indicate that excess lifetime
cancer risks which are within or below the one in ten thousand (1 x
10-4) to one in one million (1 x 10-6) range are
considered protective of human health.
    For IHSS 199, the highest calculated excess cancer risk, assuming
reasonable maximum exposures (RME) under a residential exposure was
three in one million (3 x 10-6). Using central tendency, the
risk under a residential scenario was two in ten million (2 x
10-7). For the recreational exposure, the excess cancer risk
was five in one hundred million (5 x 10-8) using the RME,
and three in one billion (3 x 10-9) using central tendency.
    For IHSS 200, the highest calculated excess cancer risk employing
RME and the residential exposure was nine in ten million (9 x
10-7); the corresponding risk using central tendency was six
in one hundred million (6 x 10-8). Using the recreational
scenario, the highest risk using RME was one in one hundred million (1
x 10-8), and the risk using central tendency was eight in
ten billion (8 x 10-10).
    The highest calculated radiation dose for IHSSs 199 and 200
occurred using the RME, assuming a residential exposure scenario. The
highest Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE, which incorporates both
internal and external radiation dose) for IHSS 199 for an adult was
0.12 millirem per year (mrem/yr); the corresponding TEDE for IHSS 200
is 0.0065 mrem/yr. The average radiation dose in the U.S. is estimated
to be about 300 mrem/year, while the average dose in Colorado may be as
much as 700 mrem/year, owing to the state's higher altitude and
relative abundance of naturally occurring radionuclides.
    These levels of radioactivity are also far below the 231 pCi/g
activity level for an adult rural resident that equates to the 25 mrem/
year dose criterion specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection
Against Radiation. Based on these results, the Peripheral OU is
determined to be acceptable for all uses from a radiological
perspective.
    The RFI/RI Report evaluated health risks and radiation dose from
surface water. Surface water was sampled for plutonium and americium.
The maximum and mean concentrations of plutonium and americium detected
in surface water from the reservoirs were well below the CDPHE
standards, the National Drinking Water Standards, and the Rocky Flats
Site specific standards for plutonium and americium.
    DOE submitted the RFI/RI Report to the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the federal Center for Disease
Control, for the purpose of obtaining a Health Consultation. The
purpose of the Health Consultation was to obtain an independent
evaluation as to whether COCs had been adequately identified in OU 3,
the risks to human health posed by releases of hazardous substances in
OU 3 adequately analyzed, and whether the proposal for no remedial
action in OU 3 was appropriate considering these risks. The ATSDR
concluded that the COC selection process was based on reasonable
assumptions, and that none of the constituents present in OU 3 posed
public health concerns. Further, the ATSDR Health Consultation stated
that no additional activities were needed in OU 3 in order to ensure
the public's health.
    Based upon the BRA and the ERA contained in the RFI/RI Report, DOE,
the lead agency under CERCLA for OU 3, concluded that no action was
appropriate for OU 3. The RFI/RI Report concluded that all IHSSs within
OU 3 are already protective of human health and the environment. Field
and laboratory work showed no indications of adverse effects from
plutonium or americium on the ecology of OU 3. The NCP provides for the
selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective
state. Therefore, no remedial action regarding OU 3 or any of its
constituent IHSSs was warranted.
B.2 Declaration Statement for Offsite Areas OU CAD/ROD
    DOE in consultation with CDPHE and EPA, determined that no remedial
action was necessary for OU 3 to be

protective of human health, welfare and the environment. No hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain within the boundaries of
OU3 above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, as these levels have been calculated in the OU 3 RFI/RI
Report.
B.3 Evaluation of OU3 CAD/ROD Data in First Five-Year Review
    A five-year review of the OU 3 CAD/ROD was conducted to assess the
continued protectiveness of the remedy. The OU 3 CAD/ROD concluded that
transport by wind and water was the primary means by which plutonium
and americium were carried to OU 3. Therefore, available air and water
monitoring data collected after the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed were
reviewed to determine if environmental conditions at OU 3 have changed
since the BRA was completed. The air monitoring data from the RFETS
perimeter air monitoring network were analyzed and the conclusion was
that the amounts of plutonium and americium that have been measured at
the RFETS perimeter since 1997 have been environmentally insignificant.
These amounts of plutonium and americium would not have caused
contaminant levels in OU 3 to change significantly since the OU 3 CAD/
ROD was signed. Water monitoring data from the RFCA Points of
Compliance on Woman Creek and Walnut Creek at Indiana Street, and data
collected by the City of Broomfield for Great Western Reservoir, were
analyzed. Samples of water leaving RFETS showed consistent compliance
with RFCA surface water standards, and water samples from Great Western
Reservoir were consistently at or below detection limits for plutonium
and americium. The report also included a Protectiveness Statement as
required by EPA guidance. Pursuant to the Protectiveness Statement,
DOE's ongoing custody and control of RFETS, ongoing monitoring
programs, and restriction of public access serve to adequately control
risks posed by contamination at RFETS. The no action decision for OU 3
was determined to be adequately protective.
    Review of air monitoring data and water quality data at the Points
of Compliance since the first five-year review also indicate there have
not been significant amounts of plutonium or americium that have
entered OU 3 through the air or water pathways. Therefore,
environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed significantly since
the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.
B.4 OU 3 Conclusions
    Conditions in OU 3 pose no unacceptable or significant risks to
human health or the environment; future unacceptable or significant
exposures will not occur there as a result of past contamination. DOE
concluded that no action was necessary in OU 3 for the protection of
human health or the environment. Reviews following the OU 3 CAD/ROD
have concluded that environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed
significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.

Community Involvement

    Public Participation activities for the cleanup of the Peripheral
OU and OU 3 were conducted as required under CERCLA Section 113(k), 42
U.S.C. 9613(k) and Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Public review included
the following activities:
A. Community Involvement for the Peripheral OU
    The Draft RI/FS Report for the RFETS was released for public review
and information in October 2005, and was available at that time in the
Rocky Flats public reading rooms and online. Several informational
public meetings on the draft RI/FS were held, at which representatives
from DOE and its contractor, EPA and CDPHE were present to answer
questions. These meetings included a discussion at the Rocky Flats
Citizens Advisory Board meeting on November 3, 2005. The final RI/FS
report was approved by EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006. Copies of the
final RI/FS report were placed at seven information centers in the
Denver metropolitan area on July 14, 2005. In addition, the RI/FS
report was available on line at http://www.rfets.gov, and copies on

compact disc were available at the public information meetings during
the comment period for the Proposed Plan. DOE, EPA and CDPHE held a
pre-release informational meeting for the Proposed Plan on May 30,
2006, to explain changes that were made to the draft RI/FS report, and
to describe the major components of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed
Plan was released for formal public comment on July 14, 2006. Notice of
the public comment period appeared in The Rocky Mountain News and The
Denver Post from May 22 through May 28, 2006, and was also provided at
the informational public meeting. DOE sent out community and media
advisories prior to the release of the Proposed Plan, and prior to each
informational meeting and the public hearing. The Proposed Plan was
placed in seven information centers in the Denver metropolitan area,
was available at the informational meetings held during the comment
period, and was available on line at http://www.rfets.gov. The Proposed

Plan included discussions on future land use and use of groundwater at
Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats administrative record file was available
for public review at the Front Range Community College reading room in
Westminster, Colorado, as well as on line at http://www.rfets.gov.

    DOE held two informational meetings during the public comment
period, at which agency representatives presented the scope and purpose
of the Proposed Plan, discussed opportunities to provide input on the
Proposed Plan, and responded to questions from the public. The first
informational meeting was held on July 19, 2006 in Golden, Colorado,
and the second informational meeting took place in Westminster,
Colorado on August 8, 2006. Prior notice of each meeting was provided
through advertisements in the aforementioned newspapers, running from
July 13 through July 19, 2006, and again from August 2 through August
8, 2006. A public hearing for the Proposed Plan took place on August
31, 2006 in Arvada, Colorado; separate sessions were held in the
afternoon and in the evening on that date to accommodate as many
members of the public as possible. Prior notice of the public hearing
was accomplished through advertisements in the aforementioned
newspapers that ran from August 25 through August 31, 2006, with a
display ad posted in both papers on August 29, 2006. Both written and
oral public comments were accepted at the public hearing. A transcript
of the public hearing has been made available to the public and placed
in the Rocky Flats administrative record file.
    The public comment period for the Proposed Plan extended from July
14 through September 13, 2006. No requests for extension of the public
comment period were received. DOE's responses to public comments
received during the comment period are included in the Responsiveness
Summary section of the RFETS CAD/ROD.
B. Community Involvement for OU 3
    DOE submitted the final RFI/RI Report for OU 3 to EPA on July 11,
1996 following resolution of final comments by EPA, CDPHE, the City of
Broomfield, and the City of Westminster. Regulatory approval to release
the OU 3 Proposed Plan for public comment was granted on August 7,
1996.
    The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on August 7,
1996. A

public hearing on the OU 3 Proposed Plan was held on September 18, 1996
at the Arvada Center for the Performing Arts and Humanities in Arvada,
Colorado. Citizen comments received at the public hearing were recorded
and responses to those comments were included in a Responsiveness
Summary. The public comment period for the OU 3 Proposed Plan ended on
October 11, 1996. Written comments on the Proposed Plan were received
from the Cities of Westminster and Broomfield. Responses to those
written comments were also included in the Responsiveness Summary.

Current Status

    The RFETS RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was already
in a state protective of human health and the environment, therefore
the selected remedy in the RFETS CAD/ROD for the Peripheral OU was no
action. No accelerated actions were taken in the Peripheral OU, and no
remedial action alternatives were evaluated for the Peripheral OU.
Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in
the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, a five-year review was not required for this
remedy. This documentation provides the technical justification for
deletion of the Peripheral Operable Unit, Rocky Flats Plant from the
NPL.
    For the OU 3 (Offsite Areas) conditions were determined to be
protective of human health and the environment at the time the OU 3
CAD/ROD was signed in 1997, and again during the first five-year review
finalized in September 2002. Since then, summary data for OU 3 has been
reviewed and indicate that conditions have not changed to alter
conclusions of earlier OU 3 assessments. This documentation provides
the technical justification for deletion of OU 3 (Offsite Areas), Rocky
Flats Plant from the NPL.
    EPA, with concurrence from CDPHE, has determined that all
appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed within the
Peripheral OU and OU 3 to protect public health and the environment and
that no further response action by responsible parties is required.
Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the
Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.

    Dated: March 1, 2007.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
 [FR Doc. E7-4449 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden ( 703) 305 6463 Interregional Research Project # 4 ( IR 4) and FMC Corporation PP# s 2E6423, 2E6451, 2E6492, 3E6882, 4E6843 EPA has received pesticide petitions ( PP No.: 2E6423, 2E6451, 2E6492, 3E6882, 4E6843) from IR 4, The Technology Centre of New Jersey, 681 US Hwy # 1, South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 3390 and prepared by the registrant, FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.442 by establishing a tolerance for residues of bifenthrin (( 2 methyl 1,1  biphenyl 3 yl) methyl 3( 2 chloro 3,3,3, trifluoro 1 propenyl) 2,2 dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on the raw agricultural commodities leafy brassica greens, subgroup 5B and turnip, tops at 3.0 parts per million ( ppm) ( 2E6451), tuberous and corm vegetables, subgroup 1C at 0.1 ppm ( 3E6882), Okra at 0.5 ppm ( 2E6492), dried shelled pea and bean ( except soybean), subgroup 6C at 0.1 ppm ( 2E6423), Cilantro at 5.0 ppm ( 4E6843). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of bifenthrin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled bifenthrin in various crops all showing similar results. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

2. Analytical method.[ There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of bifenthrin in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection ( GC/ ECD).

3. Magnitude of residues. Field residue trials meeting EPA study requirements have been conducted at the maximum label rate for the crops leafy brassica greens, tuberous and corm vegetables, okra, cilantro and dried shelled pea and bean. Results from the studies demonstrate that the highest bifenthrin residues found will not exceed the proposed tolerances for leafy brassica greens, subgroup 5B and turnip tops at 3.0 parts per million ( ppm), tuberous and corm vegetables, subgroup 1C at 0.1 ppm, Okra at 0.5 ppm, dried shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6C at 0.1 ppm, Cilantro at 5.0 ppm when bifenthrin is applied following the proposed use directions.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, FMC has used the results of the 2003 EPA completed risk assessment for bifenthrin. This acute dietary endpoint used to determine acute dietary risks to the general population including infants and children is from the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, LOAEF = 70.3 mg ai/ kg, NOAEL = 32.8 mg ai/ kg, UF = 1000, Acute RfD = 0.033 mg/ kg/ day 2. Genotoxicty. The mouse lymphoma mutagenesis assay gave a weak positive result; however, the weight of the evidence from short term mutagenicity tests indicate that bifenthrin is not mutagenic.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. i. Rat reproduction study. Parental toxicity occurred as decreased body weight at 5.0 mg/ kg/ day with a no observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 3.0 mg/ kg/ day. There were no developmental ( pup) or reproductive effects up to 5.0 mg/ kg/ day ( highest dose tested).

ii. Postnatal Sensitivity. Based on the absence of pup toxicity up to dose levels, which produced toxicity in the parental animals, there was no evidence of special postnatal sensitivity to infants and children in the rat reproduction study. In a developmental neurotoxicity study, pups were not more sensitive than the dams. The NOELs for maternal and developmental neurotoxicity were both 50 ppm.

4. Subchronic toxicity. The results of the 21 day dermal toxicity study in rats is used for short term ( 1 30 days), intermediate term ( 1 6 months) and long term (> 6 months) dermal risk calculations. The 21 day dermal toxicity study NOEL for systemic toxicity is 47 mg ai/ kg/ day based on observations of clinical signs ( exaggerated hindlimb flexion and staggered gait).

5. Chronic toxicity. The reference dose ( RfD) has been established at 0.004 mg/ kg/ day. This RfD is based on a one year oral study in dogs with a LOAEF of 2.7 mg ai/ kg/ day and a NOAEL of 1.3 mg ai/ kg/ day, UF = 300 based on observations of increased incidence of tremors in both sexes.

ii. Bifenthrin is classified as a Group C chemical ( possible human carcinogen); No Q1* has been derived.

6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of bifenthrin in animals is adequately understood. Metabolism studies in rats with single doses demonstrated that about 90% of the parent compound and its hydroxylated metabolites are excreted.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of bifenthrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance expression.

8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of bifenthrin have been conducted. However, no evidence of such effects was reported in the standard battery of required toxicology studies, which have been completed and found acceptable. Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that bifenthrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Tolerances have been established for the residues of bifenthrin, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Tolerances, in support of registrations, currently exist for residues of bifenthrin on the following crops: hops, strawberries, corn ( grain, forage and fodder), sweet corn, eggplant, cottonseed, artichokes, peppers ( bell and non bell), lettuce ( head), grapes, spinach, cabbage, rapeseed, tomatoes, Food Handling Establishments, banana ( import) and pears. Also for the crop groups: vegetables, cucurbit, group 9, fruit, citrus, group 10 and nuts, tree, group 14 and the subgroups: vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A, pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, caneberry subgroup 13A, and brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A and herb subgroup 19A. Also, for the livestock commodities of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep, poultry, eggs, and milk. Pending tolerances for leaf petioles subgroup 4B, vegetables tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybeans, subgroup 6C also exist. For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure for these existing and pending tolerances, EPA conducted an exposure estimate using Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM) software version 7.76, results from field trials and processing studies, monitoring data, consumption data from the 1989 1992, USDA Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII), and information on the percentages of the crops treated ( where available) with bifenthrin were utilized. i. Food. a. Acute Dietary Exposure risk assessments are performed for a food use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1 day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, FMC has used the results of the 2003 EPA completed risk assessment for bifenthrin. This acute dietary endpoint used to determine acute dietary risks to the general population including infants and children is from the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, LOAEF = 70.3 mg ai/ kg, NOAEL = 32.8 mg ai/ kg, UF = 1000, Acute RfD = 0.0328 mg/ kg/ day. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated ( if no estimate was available the conservative estimate of 50% crop treatment was used) were incorporated into a Tier 1+ analysis; using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments demonstrate that the MOEs at the 99.9th percentile are greater than the EPA standard of 100% aPAD for all subpopulations. The 99.9th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. Population is estimated to be 0.010601 mg/ kg/ day ( 32% aPAD). The 99.9th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old ( most highly exposed population subgroup) is estimated to be 0.016522 mg/ kg/ day ( 50% aPAD). The 99.9th percentile of exposure to all infants less than 1 year old is estimated to be 0.014314 mg/ kg/ day ( 44% aPAD). Based on the conservatism used in the analyses, actual dietary exposure will be less than that presented here. FMC concludes that based on adequate % aPAD for all population subgroups there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed additional uses of bifenthrin. b. Chronic Exposure. The reference dose ( RfD) has been established at 0.004 mg/ kg/ day. This RfD is based on a one year oral study in dogs with a LOAEF of 2.7 mg ai/ kg/ day and a NOAEL of 1.3 mg ai/ kg/ day, UF = 300 based on observations of increased incidence of tremors in both sexes. The chronic exposures for the U. S. Population are estimated to be 0.001310 mg/ kg/ day and utilize 33% of the cPAD. The chronic exposures for Children 1 to 6 years old ( most highly exposed population subgroup) is estimated to be 0.003480 mg/ kg/ day and utilizes 87% of the cPAD. Chronic dietary exposure estimates for all infants (< 1 year old) is estimated to be 0.001276 mg/ kg/ day and utilizes 32% of the cPAD. Therefore, FMC concludes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed additional uses of bifenthrin.

ii. Drinking water. US EPA's draft SOP for Incorporating Estimates of Drinking Water Exposure into Aggregate Risk Assessments was used to perform a drinking water analysis. This SOP utilizes a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessment. These tools include water models such as FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST), PRZM/ EXAMS, SCIGROW and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface water. A comparison of the calculated Drinking Water Level of Concern ( DWLOC) value to the Estimated Environmental Concentration ( EEC) is made. If the DWLOC exceeds the EEC value then there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the short or intermediate term aggregate exposure. In the case of bifenthrin, monitoring data do not exist, so the FIRST model was used to estimate a surface water residue and SCIGROW for the groundwater. Based on the analyses the acute aggregate exposures to bifenthrin residues, the DWLOC for all seasons for the US population was 777 ppb while the modeled EEC, was 0.1 and 0.006 ppb for surface water and ground water respectively. For children ( 1 6 year old), the DWLOCs was 244 ppb while the modeled EEC was the same as that for the whole US population. For the chronic aggregate exposures to bifenthrin residues, the DWLOC for all seasons for the US population was 94 ppb while the modeled EEC, was 0.1 and 0.006 ppb for surface water and ground water respectively. For children ( 1 6 year old), the DWLOCs was 8 ppb while the modeled EEC was the same as that for the whole US population. Since, the calculated DWLOC values for all population subgroups exceeded the modeled EEC for surface water and ground water residues, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposures to bifenthrin residues.

2. Non dietary exposure. The aggregate residential exposure analyses were based on conservative screening level assumptions. The residential risk assessments resulted in acceptable MOEs and a clear indication of reasonable certainty of no harm. The short term analyses, all of the route and product specific MOEs were greater than 300 and the aggregate MOEs were greater than 300 for all population subgroups. Based on the above information, FMC concludes that bifenthrin does not pose a risk due to short and intermediate term aggregate exposure.

D. Cumulative Effects To our knowledge there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by bifenthrin would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds; thus only the potential risks of bifenthrin have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate exposure. E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Using the conservative exposure assessment analyses the estimated chronic exposure to the U. S. Population is 0.001310 mg/ kg/ day and utilizes 33% of the cPAD. In addition, the chronic exposure estimates for all population subgroups ( including infants and children) are well below the cPAD of 0.004 mg/ kg/ day. The acute dietary exposure analyses at the 99.9th percentile for the U. S. Population is 0.010601 and utilizes 32% of the aPAD. In addition, the acute exposure estimates for population subgroups of concern ( infants and children) indicate that the maximum % aPAD or % cPAD utilized is 50% ( aPAD) and 87% ( cPAD) . Based on this information FMC concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute and chronic exposure to bifenthrin. 2. Infants and children. i. General. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of bifenthrin, FMC considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, a developmental neurotoxicity study, and a two generation reproduction study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the systemic toxicity. FFDCA Section 408 provides that the EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and completeness of the database. ii. Developmental toxicity studies. In the rabbit developmental study, there were no developmental effects observed in the fetuses exposed to bifenthrin. The maternal NOAEL was 2.67 mg/ kg/ day based on head and forelimb twitching at the LOAEL of 4 mg/ kg/ day. In the rat developmental study, the maternal NOEL was 7.4 mg/ kg/ day, based on treatment related clinical signs and reductions in body weights, adjusted maternal body weights, and corresponding reductions in food consumption noted among dams receiving the LOEL of 16.3 mg/ kg/ day. The developmental NOEL was greater than 16.3 mg/ kg/ day based on lack of any adverse fetal effects at levels up to and including 16.3 mg/ kg/ day. iii. Developmental neurotoxicity study. In a rat developmental neurotoxicity study, pups were not more sensitive than the dams. The NOEL for maternal toxicity was 50 ppm, based on tremors at the LOEL of 100 ppm. The NOEL for developmental neurotoxicity was also 50 ppm. iv. Reproductive toxicity study. In the rat reproduction study, parental toxicity occurred as decreased body weight at 5.0 mg/ kg/ day with a NOAEL of 3.0 mg/ kg/ day. There were no developmental ( pup) or reproductive effects up to 5.0 mg/ kg/ day ( highest dose tested). v. Conclusion. Based on the absence of fetal effects and pup toxicity in any of the referenced studies, FMC concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100 fold uncertainty factor, and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children. As previously stated, aggregate exposure assessments utilized no more than 87% of the aPAD or cPAD for either the entire U. S. Population or any of the population subgroups including infants and children. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to bifenthrin residues.

F. International Tolerances There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican residue limits for the residue of bifenthrin in or on leafy brassica greens, tuberous and corm vegetables, okra, cilantro and dried shelled pea and bean.


[Federal Register: May 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28813-28814]
[DOCID:fr19my08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12961-000]

AER NY-Kinetics, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

May 12, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12961-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 13, 2007.
    d. Applicant: AER NY-Kinetics, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Ogdensburg Kinetic Energy Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in the St. Lawrence River
in St. Lawrence County, New York. The project uses no dam or
impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Joseph Klimaszewski, Jr., Regional
Director, Alliance Energy Renewables, P.O. Box 585, Ogdensburg, NY
13669,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and Mr. Fred Springer, Hydropower Policy
Advisor, Troutman Sanders LLP, 401 9th St., NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please
include the project number (P-12961-000) on any comments or motions
filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1) 11
arrays, each consisting of ten, 1 megawatt hydrokinetic turbine units,
for a total installed capacity of 110 megawatts, (2) a proposed
underwater cable approximately 9 to 10 miles in length, which would
transport the power generated from each array to shore, (3) a 500-foot-
long transmission line, which would connect the underwater cable to a
substation, (4) a cable anchoring system to anchor the turbine units to
either a fixed structure or the riverbed, and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of
944.328 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to

intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must
be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular
application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'' or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11095 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 9542-9543]
[DOCID:fr24fe06-75]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0516; FRL-7763-3]

Request for Public Comment on Proposed Settlement Agreement
Involving Pesticides and the Endangered Species Act

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice of availability; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA is making available for comment a proposed Settlement
Agreement that would establish a series of deadlines for the Agency to
make ``effects determinations'' on atrazine as it relates to any of 21
identified endangered or threatened species or their designated
critical habitat. If the Agency determines atrazine ``may affect and is
likely to adversely affect'' any of the listed species, the Agency will
initiate formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate.
EPA will evaluate all comments received during the public comment
period to determine whether all or part of the proposed Settlement
Agreement warrants reconsideration. This proposed Settlement Agreement,
if entered by the Court, would resolve a lawsuit brought against EPA by
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC or plaintiff).

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0516, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0516. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0516. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Arty Williams, Environmental Fate and
Effects Division (7507C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; faxnumber:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to the Natural Resources Defense Council, other
public interest groups, state regulatory partners, other

interested federal agencies, pesticide registrants and pesticide users.
Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is making available for comment a proposed Settlement Agreement
that would establish a series of deadlines for the Agency to make
``effects determinations'' on atrazine as it relates to any of 21
identified endangered or threatened species or their designated
critical habitat. If the Agency determines atrazine ``may affect and is
likely to adversely affect'' any of the listed species, the Agency will
initiate formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate.
EPA will evaluate all comments received during the public comment
period to determine whether all or part of the proposed Settlement
Agreement warrants reconsideration. This proposed Settlement Agreement,
if entered by the Court, would resolve a lawsuit brought against EPA by
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC or plaintiff).

III. Background

    On August 21, 2003, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court of Maryland alleging that EPA failed to comply with
section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2) (NRDC v.EPA, Case No. Civ. No: 03-CV-02444 RDB).
    EPA has reached an agreement with the plaintiff. The agreement is
embodied in a proposed Settlement Agreement. The proposed Settlement
Agreement sets a series of deadlines for the Agency to make ``effects
determinations'' on the potential for atrazine to affect any of the
following species (or their designated critical habitat): Loggerhead
sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, green sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea
turtle, shortnose sturgeon, dwarf wedge mussel, Barton Springs
salamander, Alabama sturgeon, pink mucket pearly mussel, shiny pigtoe
pearly mussel, fine-rayed pigtoe mussel, rough pigtoe mussel, heavy
pigtoe mussel, ovate clubshell mussel, southern clubshell mussel,
stirrup mussel, pallid sturgeon, Topeka shiner, fat pocketbook pearly
mussel, purple cat's paw pearly mussel, and northern riffleshell. An
``effects determination'' considers whether use of a pesticide: (1) Has
no effect on a listed species; (2) may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect a listed species; or (3) may affect and is likely to
adversely affect a listed species. If the Agency determines atrazine
``may affect and is likely to adversely affect'' any of the 21 named
species or their designated critical habitat, EPA will initiate formal
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as described in the Settlement
Agreement. In addition, during the pendency of the schedule for effects
determinations outlined in the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiff
agrees not to seek any injunction or other use restriction for any of
the pesticides subject to the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, in the event EPA makes a ``may affect and is
likely to adversely affect'' determination for atrazine on any of the
listed species named in the lawsuit, the plaintiff reserves the right
to seek use restrictions for that pesticide by filing a new complaint
with the Court.
    Beginning today, EPA is opening a 15-day comment period on the
proposed Settlement Agreement. EPA will use the comments to determine
whether all or part of the proposed Settlement Agreement warrants
reconsideration. If EPA determines that any part of the proposed
Settlement Agreement merits reconsideration, EPA will provide the
plaintiff with a written request for further negotiations and the
proposed Settlement Agreement shall not be entered with the Court
unless the parties can reach agreement on needed changes. If EPA
determines that the proposed Settlement Agreement does not need to be
reconsidered, the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement shall
become effective upon entry by the U.S. District Court for Maryland.
Once the Settlement Agreement is entered by the U.S. District Court,
EPA will post on its web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides a notice

indicating the Settlement Agreement has been so entered.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Endangered species.

    Dated: February 15, 2006.
Margaret Schneider,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 06-1744 Filed 2-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69159-69160]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27448]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73599; File No. SR-OC-2014-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Trading Hours for Bilateral Block
Trades and Bilateral EFP Trades

November 14, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on October 23, 2014,
OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago,'' ``OCX,'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons. OneChicago has also filed
this rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC''). OneChicago filed a written certification with the CFTC
under Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') on October
23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    OCX is proposing to expand its Trading Hours for bilateral block
trades and bilateral Exchange of Future for Physical (``EFP'') trades.
Currently, bilateral block trades and bilateral EFP trades are
permitted to be reported to the Exchange beginning at 8:00 a.m. Central
Time (``CT'') until 4:00 p.m. CT. Under the proposed change, market
participants will be permitted to report these bilateral trades
beginning at 7:00 a.m. CT. The closing time for reporting bilateral
block trades and bilateral EFP trades will remain unchanged at 4:00
p.m. CT.
    The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to
the filing submitted by the Exchange but is not attached to the
published notice of the filing.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OneChicago included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of OneChicago's filing is to update its Trading Hours
by expanding the reporting time for bilateral block and bilateral EFP
trades. Currently, bilateral trades may be reported to OneChicago
beginning at 8:00 a.m. CT and concluding at 4:00 p.m. CT. This
reporting period opens thirty minutes earlier--and closes one hour
later--than the standard market hours, which are 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m. CT
(3:15 p.m. for futures overlaying ETFs).
    By expanding the bilateral trade reporting hours, OneChicago will
allow market participants to utilize liquidity in the pre-market period
when hedging their bilateral block trades, and also to generally
increase the hours for reporting a bilateral EFP. Since the Exchange
Rules require the reporting of bilateral trades within a certain
timeframe, market participants cannot execute the underlying security
portion of their block and EFP trades before permissible reporting
hours. With the proposed change, market participants will be able to
execute and timely report bilateral trades that involved underlying
security executions that occurred as early as 7:00 a.m. CT.
2. Statutory Basis
    OneChicago believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\2\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\3\ in particular, in that it
is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities, and remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market
system. OneChicago believes that expanding the bilateral trade
reporting hours removes an impediment to trading that OneChicago market
participants currently experience. By restricting bilateral trade
reporting to an 8:00 a.m. CT opening time, market participants are
currently unable to report bilateral trades executed before that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OneChicago does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The rule
change simply expands the trading hours for bilateral trades and does
not impose any new burdens on any market participants. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all of the amended rules apply equally to all
market participants.

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

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

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

    The rule change will become operative on November 10, 2014.
    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the
proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OC-2014-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2014-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2014-05,
and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27448 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66697-66698]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC19-13-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-715); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-715 (Annual Transmission Planning and
Evaluation Report).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 25,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC19-13-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation
Report.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0171.
    Abstract: Acting under FPA section 213,\1\ FERC requires each
transmitting utility that operates integrated transmission system
facilities rated above 100 kilovolts (kV) to submit annually:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824l.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Contact information for the FERC-715;
     Base case power flow data (if it does not participate in
the development and use of regional power flow data);
     Transmission system maps and diagrams used by the
respondent for transmission planning;
     A detailed description of the transmission planning
reliability criteria used to evaluate system performance for time
frames and planning horizons used in regional and corporate planning;
     A detailed description of the respondent's transmission
planning assessment practices (including, but not limited to, how
reliability criteria are applied and the steps taken in performing
transmission planning studies); and
     A detailed evaluation of the respondent's anticipated
system performance as measured against its stated reliability criteria
using its stated assessment practices.
    The FERC-715 enables the Commission to use the information as part
of their regulatory oversight functions which includes:
     The review of rates and charges;
     The disposition of jurisdictional facilities;
     The consolidation and mergers;
     The adequacy of supply and;
     Reliability of the nation's transmission grid.
    The FERC-715 enables the Commission to facilitate and resolve
transmission disputes. Additionally, the Office of Electric Reliability
(OER) uses the FERC-715 data to help protect and improve the
reliability and security of the nation's bulk power system. OER
oversees the development and review of mandatory reliability and
security standards and ensures compliance with

the approved standards by the users, owners, and operators of the bulk
power system. OER also monitors and addresses issues concerning the
nation's bulk power system including assessments of resource adequacy
and reliability.
    Without the FERC-715 data, the Commission would be unable to
evaluate planned projects or requests related to transmission.
    Type of Respondent: Integrated transmission system facilities rated
at or above 100 kilovolts (kV).
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \3\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \3\ The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017, for the listed
reporting requirements. These figures include salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are:
    --Management (Code 11-0000), $94.28/hr.
    --Computer and mathematical (Code 15-0000), $63.25/hr.
    --Electrical Engineers (Code 17-2071), $66.90/hr.
    --Economist (Code 19-3011), $71.98/hr.
    --Computer and Information Systems Managers (Code 11-3021),
$96.51/hr.
    --Accountants and Auditors (Code 13-2011), $56.59/hr.
    --Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers (Code 11-
3071), $88.61/hr.
    --Power Distributors and Dispatchers (Code 51-8012), $56.74/hr.
    --We are using the average hourly cost (for wages plus benefits,
for these categories) of $74.36/hour.
    \4\ In 2018, FERC had 111 direct filings (responses) from
entities. However there were 239 total respondents if Transmitting
Utilities that have their filing submitted by a designated reporting
agent, such as a regional entity, are counted independently.

                                              FERC-715, Annual Transmission Planning and Evaluation Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                                              Total annual burden
                                         Number of       of responses   Total number of   Average burden & cost   hours & total annual       Cost per
                                        respondents     per respondent     responses          per response                cost             respondent $
                                                 (1)              (2)   (1) * (2) = (3)  (4)...................  (3) * (4) = (5).......       (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Transmission Planning and                 111                1              111   160 hrs.; $11,897.60..  17,760 hrs.;                $11,897.60
 Evaluation Report \4\                                                                                $1,320,633.60.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: December 19, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28052 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P