[Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 39089-39090]
[DOCID:fr05jy11-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-80-000.
    Applicants: Bayonne Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt
Wholesale Generator Status of Bayonne Energy Center, LLC, Docket No.
EG11-80.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110511-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 01, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2670-002; ER10-2669-002; ER10-2671-002; ER10-
2673-002; ER10-2253-002; ER10-3319-003; ER10-2674-002; ER10-2627-002;
ER10-2629-002; ER10-1546-003; ER10-1547-002; ER10-2675-002; ER10-2676-
002; ER10-2636-002; ER10-1975-003; ER10-1974-003; ER11-2424-005; ER10-
2677-002; ER10-1550-003; ER10-1551-002; ER10-2638-002.
    Applicants: Hopewell Cogeneration Ltd Partnership, MT. Tom
Generating

Company LLC, Calumet Energy Team, LLC, Pleasants Energy, LLC, Waterbury
Generation LLC, Syracuse Energy Corporation, GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing
NA, Inc., FirstLight Power Resources Management, L, ANP Bellingham
Energy Company, LLC, ANP Blackstone Energy Company, LLC, ANP Funding I,
LLC, Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, L., IPA Trading, Inc.,
Astoria Energy II LLC, Pinetree Power-Tamworth, Inc., Astoria Energy,
LLC, Milford Power Limited Partnership, Northeast Energy Associates, A
Limited P, FirstLight Hydro Generating Corporation, North Jersey Energy
Associates, Northeast Power Company, Northeastern Power Company.
    Description: Northeast Triennial Filing of the GDF SUEZ Northeast
MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 06/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110624-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 23, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3872-001.
    Applicants: Stony Creek Energy LLC.
    Description: Stony Creek Energy LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective
8/23/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110624-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 15, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3876-000.
    Applicants: Cordova Energy Company LLC.
    Description: Cordova Energy Company LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: Cordova Energy Company LLC MBR Tariff Baseline Filing to be
effective 6/24/2011.
    Filed Date: 06/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110624-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 15, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16694 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3671-3672]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

TIME AND DATE:  January 23, 2020, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Agenda.
    *Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's website at http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ using the
eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

                                                 1063rd--Meeting
                                  [Open Meeting; January 23, 2020; 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Item No.                       Docket No.                                Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1...........................  AD20-1-000...................  Agency Administrative Matters
A-2...........................  AD20-2-000...................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and
                                                                Market Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ELECTRIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1...........................  OMITTED......................
E-2...........................  OMITTED......................
E-3...........................  OMITTED......................
E-4...........................  ER19-2722-000................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-5...........................  EL19-47-000..................  Independent Market Monitor for PJM
                                                                Interconnection,
                                                               L.L.C. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
                                EL19-63-000..................  Office of the People's Counsel for the District
                                                                of Columbia, Delaware Division of the Public
                                                                Advocate, Citizens Utility Board, Indiana Office
                                                                of Utility Consumer Counselor, Maryland Office
                                                                of People's Counsel, Pennsylvania Office of
                                                                Consumer Advocate, West Virginia Consumer
                                                                Advocate Division, and PJM Industrial Customer
                                                                Coalition v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-6...........................  OMITTED......................
E-7...........................  OMITTED......................
E-8...........................  OMITTED......................
E-9...........................  OMITTED......................
E-10..........................  ER19-1938-000, ER19-1938-001.  Florida Power & Light Company.
E-11..........................  ER19-1940-001................  Gulf Power Company.
E-12..........................  ER19-1890-000................  MATL LLP.
E-13..........................  ER19-1943-000, ER19-1943-001.  NorthWestern Corporation.
E-14..........................  ER19-1946-000................  Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.
E-15..........................  ER19-1954-000................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-16..........................  ER19-1934-002................  Tucson Electric Power Company.
E-17..........................  ER19-1935-001................  UNS Electric, Inc.
E-18..........................  ER19-2276-000, ER19-2276-001,  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
                                 ER19-2276-002.
E-19..........................  EL18-188-000.................  NRG Curtailment Solutions, Inc. v. New York
                                                                Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-20..........................  RR19-7-000...................  North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
E-21..........................  RM19-10-000..................  Transmission Planning Reliability Standard TPL-
                                                                001-5.
E-22..........................  RM18-20-000..................  Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
                                                                Standard CIP-012-1--Cyber Security--
                                                                Communications between Control Centers.
E-23..........................  RM05--5-025, RM05-5-026, RM05- Standards for Business Practices and
                                 5-027.                         Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.
E-24..........................  RM19-16-000, RM19-17-000.....  Electric Reliability Organization Proposal to
                                                                Retire Requirements in Reliability Standards
                                                                Under the NERC Standards Efficiency Review.
E-25..........................  ER18-2208-002................  New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

E-26..........................  EL18-196-001.................  RTO Insider LLC v. New England Power Pool
                                                                Participants Committee.
E-27..........................  ER09-1256-003, ER09-1256-005,  Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC
                                 ER12-2708-004, ER12-2708-     PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
                                 005, ER12-2708-007.
E-28..........................  ER15-1436-001................  Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy
                                                                Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
                                                                Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc.,
                                                                and Entergy Texas, Inc.
E-29..........................  ER02-2001-020................  Electric Quarterly Reports.
                                ER10-1110-000................  Mint Energy, LLC.
                                ER10-2291-001................  Westmoreland Partners.
                                ER11-2039-001................  E-T Global Energy, LLC.
                                ER11-3028-002................  BBPC, LLC.
                                ER11-3879-001................  Amerigreen Energy, Inc.
                                ER11-4447-000................  Mac Trading, Inc.
                                ER12-1202-001................  Liberty Hill Power LLC.
                                ER12-1170-003................  Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 1, LLC.
                                ER15-455-000.................  Lexington Power & Light, LLC.
                                ER13-183-000.................  Clear Choice Energy, LLC.
                                ER14-663-001.................  Energy Discounters, LLC.
                                ER14-2421-000................  Infinite Energy Corporation.
                                ER15-626-000.................  North Energy Power, LLC.
E-30..........................  EL17-84-001..................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-31..........................  ER20-323-000.................  Helix Ravenswood, LLC and Ravenswood Development,
                                                                LLC.
E-32..........................  ER18-1743-002................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-33..........................  ER17-795-003.................  ISO New England Inc.
E-34..........................  OMITTED......................  .................................................
E-35..........................  EL17-90-001..................  Linden VFT, LLC v. Public Service Electric and
                                                                Gas Company and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-36..........................  EL19-62-001..................  City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri v.
                                                                Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-37..........................  EL19-53-001..................  Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
                                QF19-855-002.................  Eco Green Generation LLC.
E-38..........................  ER20-45-000..................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       GAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1...........................  OR19-28-000..................  Medallion Delaware Express, LLC and Medallion
                                                                Pipeline Company, LLC.
G-2...........................  OR19-34-000..................  Medallion Midland Gathering, LLC and Medallion
                                                                Pipeline Company, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      HYDRO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1...........................  P-2337-079...................  PacifiCorp.
H-2...........................  P-1494-450...................  Grand River Dam Authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  CERTIFICATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1...........................  CP18-137-000.................  Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
C-2...........................  CP16-454-001.................  Rio Grande LNG, LLC.
                                CP16-455-001.................  Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC.
C-3...........................  RP20-41-000..................  PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: January 16, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/. Anyone with internet access who desires to
view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ or contact
Shirley Al-Jarani at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2020-01126 Filed 1-17-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7072-7074]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2015-0007-N-1]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its
implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently
approved information collection activities. Before submitting the
information collection requests (ICRs) below for clearance by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment
on specific aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following
proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of
Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop
35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge
receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB control number ____ .''
Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493-
6216 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email to Mr. Brogan at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public
for comment on information collection activities before seeking
approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A);
5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA
invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of
proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the
information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the activities will have
practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden
of the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public by automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iv); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1)(i)-(iv). FRA believes that soliciting public comment will
promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens
associated with the collection of information mandated by Federal
regulations. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will
advance three objectives: (i) Reduce reporting burdens; (ii) ensure
that it organizes information collection requirements in a ``user
friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and (iii)
accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of currently approved information
collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as
required under the PRA:
    Title: Inspection and Maintenance of Steam Locomotives (Formerly
Steam Locomotive Inspection).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0505.
    Abstract: The Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LBIA) of 1911
required

each railroad subject to the Act to file copies of its rules and
instructions for the inspection of locomotives. The original LBIA was
expanded to cover the entire steam locomotive and tender and all its
parts and appurtenances. This Act then requires carriers to make
inspections and to repair defects to ensure the safe operation of steam
locomotives. The collection of information is used by tourist or
historic railroads and by locomotive owners/operators to provide a
record for each day a steam locomotive is placed in service, as well as
a record that the required steam locomotive inspections are completed.
The collection of information is also used by FRA Federal inspectors to
verify that necessary safety inspections and tests have been completed
and to ensure that steam locomotives are indeed ``safe and suitable''
for service and are properly operated and maintained.
    Number(s): FRA-1, FRA-2, FRA-3, FRA-4, FRA-5, FRA-19.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Respondent Universe: 82 Steam Locomotive Owners/Operators.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion; annually.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           CFR section                 Respondent universe         Total annual responses       Average time per response     Total annual burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
230.6--Waivers..................  82 owners...................  2 waiver letters............  1 hour......................  2 hours.
230.12--Conditions for movement-- 82 owners/operators.........  10 tags.....................  6 minutes...................  1 hour.
 Non-Complying Locomotives.
230.14--31 Service Day            82 owners/operators.........  120 reports.................  860 minutes.................  1,720 hours
 Inspection--Notifications.       82 owners/operators.........  120 notifications...........  5 minutes...................  10 hours.
230.15--92 Service Day            82 owners/operators.........  120 reports.................  980 minutes.................  1,960 hours.
 Inspection--Form 1.
230.16--Annual Inspection--Form   82 owners/operators.........  120 reports.................  24.5 hours..................  2,940 hours
 3--Notifications.                82 owners/operators.........  120 notifications...........  5 minutes...................  10 hours.
230.17--1,472 Service Day         82 owners/operators.........  12 forms....................  500.5 hours.................  6,006 hours.
 Inspection--Form 4.
230.6--Waivers..................  82 owners...................  2 waiver letters............  1 hour......................  2 hours.
230.12--Conditions for movement-- 82 owners/operators.........  10 tags.....................  6 minutes...................  1 hour.
 Non-complying Locomotives.
230.20--Alteration Reports--      82 owners/operators.........  5 reports...................  3 hours.....................  15 hours.
 Boilers--Form 19.
230.21--Steam Locomotive Number   82 owners/operators.........  1 document..................  2 minutes...................  .033 hour.
 Change.
230.33--Welded Repairs/           82 owners/operators.........  5 letters...................  2 hours.....................  10 hours
 Alterations--Written Request to  82 owners/operators.........  3 letters...................  2 hours.....................  6 hours.
 FRA for Approval--Unstayed
 Surfaces.
230.34--Riveted Repairs/          82 owners/operators.........  2 requests..................  2 hours.....................  4 hours.
 Alterations.
230.49--Setting of Safety Relief  82 owners/operators.........  10 tags.....................  60 minutes..................  10 hours.
 Valves.
230.96--Main, Side, and Valve     82 owners/operators.........  1 letter....................  8 hours.....................  .8 hours.
 Motion Rods.
RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS.....
230.13--Daily Inspection          82 owners/operators.........  3,650 reports...............  60 minutes..................  3,650 hours.
 Reports--Form 2.
230.17--1,472 Service Day         82 owners/operators.........  12 reports..................  15 minutes..................  3 hours.
 Inspection--Form 3.
230.18--Service Day Report: Form  82 owners/operators.........  150 reports.................  15 minutes..................  38 hours.
 5.
230.19--Posting of Copy--Form 1   82 owners/operators.........  300 forms...................  5 minutes...................  25 hours.
 & 3.
230.41--Flexible Stay Bolts with  82 owners/operators.........  20 entries..................  120 hours...................  2,400 hours.
 Caps.
230.46--Badge Plates............  82 owners/operators.........  3 reports...................  2 hours.....................  6 hours.
230.47--Boiler Number...........  82 owners/operators.........  1 stamping..................  60 minutes..................  1 hour.
230.75--Stenciling Dates of       82 owners/operators.........  50 tests....................  30 minutes..................  25 hours.
 Tests and Cleaning.
230.98--Driving, Trailing, and    82 owners/operators.........  1 stamp.....................  15 minutes..................  .25 hours.
 Engine Truck Axles--Journal
 Diameter Stamped.
230.116--Oil Tanks..............  82 owners/operators.........  30 stencils.................  30 minutes..................  15 hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Responses: 4,868.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 18,866 hours.
    Status: Extension of a Currently Approved Collection.
    Title: Control of Alcohol and Drug Use in Railroad Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0526.
    Abstract: The information collection requirements contained in pre-
employment and ``for cause'' testing regulations are intended to ensure
a sense of fairness and accuracy for railroads and their employees. The
principal information--evidence of unauthorized alcohol or drug use--is
used to prevent accidents by screening personnel who perform safety-
sensitive service. FRA uses the information to measure the level of
compliance with regulations governing the use of alcohol or controlled
substances. Elimination of this problem is necessary to prevent
accidents, injuries, and fatalities of the nature already experienced
and further reduce the risk of a truly catastrophic accident.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.73, 6180.74, 6180.94A, 61880.94B.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Respondent Universe: 4 Railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           CFR section                 Respondent universe         Total annual responses       Average time per response     Total annual burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
219.7--Waivers..................  100,000 workers.............  2 letters...................  2 hours.....................  4 hours
219.9(b)(2)--Responsibility for   450 railroads...............  2 requests..................  1 hour......................  2 hours
 compliance.
219.9(c)--Responsibility for      450 railroads...............  10 docs/contracts...........  2 hours.....................  20 hours
 compliance.
219.11(d)--General conditions     450 railroads...............  30 forms....................  2 minutes...................  1 hour
 for chemical tests.
219.11(g) Training--Alcohol and   5 railroads.................  5 programs..................  3 hours.....................  15 hours
 Drug--Programs: New Railroads--  50 railroads................  50 training classes.........  3 hours.....................  150 hours
 Training.
219.23(d)--Notice to Employee     5 railroads.................  5 notices...................  1 hour......................  5 hours
 Organizations.
219.104/219.107--Removal from     450 railroads...............  500 form letters............  2 minutes...................  17 hours
 Covered Svc.--Hearing            450 railroads...............  50 requests.................  2 minutes...................  2 hours
 Procedures.

219.201(c) Good Faith             450 railroads...............  2 reports...................  30 minutes..................  1 hour
 Determination.
219.203/207/209--Notifications    450 railroads...............  104 phone calls.............  10 minutes..................  17 hours
 by Phone to FRA.
219.205--Sample Collection and    450 railroads...............  400 forms...................  15 minutes..................  100 hours
 Handling--Form covering          450 railroads...............  100 forms...................  10 minutes..................  17 hours
 accidents/incidents.
219.209(a)--Reports of Tests and  450 railroads...............  80 phone reports............  2 minutes...................  3 hours
 Refusals.
219.209(c)--Records--Tests Not    450 railroads...............  40 records..................  30 minutes..................  20 hours
 Promptly Conducted.
219.211(b) & (c)--Analysis and    450 railroads...............  8 reports...................  15 minutes..................  2 hours
 follow-up--MRO.
219.401/403/405--Voluntary        5 railroads.................  5 report policies...........  20 hours....................  100 hours
 referral and Co-worker report
 policies.
219.405(c)(1)--Report by Co-      450 railroads...............  450 reports.................  5 minutes...................  38 hours
 worker.
219.403/405--SAP Counselor        450 railroads...............  700 reports.................  30 minutes..................  350 hours
 Evaluation.
219.601(a)--RR Random Drug        5 railroads.................  5 programs..................  1 hour......................  5 hours
 Testing Programs--Amendments/    450 railroads...............  20 revision.................  1 hour......................  20 hours
 Revisions.
219.601(b)(1)--Random Selection   450 railroads...............  5,400 documents.............  4 hours.....................  21,600 hrs.
 Procedures--Drug.
219.601(b)(4); 219.601(d)--       5 railroads.................  100 notices.................  30 seconds..................  1 hour
 Notices to Employees--New        5 railroads.................  5 notices...................  10 hours....................  50 hours
 Railroads--Employee Notices--    450 railroads...............  25,000 notices..............  1 minute....................  417 hours
 Tests.
219.603(a)--Specimen Security--   20,000 employees............  20 doc. excuses.............  15 minutes..................  5 hours
 Notice By Employee Asking to be
 Excused from Urine Testing.
219.607(a)--RR Random Alcohol     5 new railroads.............  5 programs..................  8 hours.....................  40 hours
 Testing Programs--Amendments to  450 railroads...............  20 revision.................  1 hour......................  20 hours
 Approved Program.
219.901/903--Retention of Breath  450 railroads...............  100,500 records.............  5 minutes...................  8,375 hours
 Alcohol Testing Records;         450 railroads...............  200 reports.................  2 hours.....................  400 hours
 Retention of Urine Drug
 Testing--Summary Report of
 Breath Alcohol/Drug Test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Responses: 133,818.
    Total Estimated Total Annual Burden: 31,797 hours.
    Status: Extension without Change of a Currently Approved
Collection.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b),
1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not
conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2015.
Erin McCartney,
Budget Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-02528 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35118]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4596-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4596-DR), dated April 26, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 8, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include Public Assistance
for the following areas among those areas determined to have been
adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of April 26, 2021.

    Bibb, Calhoun, Clay, Hale, Perry, Randolph, and Shelby Counties
for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual
Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-14093 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


The amount of methyl bromide requested for research purposes is considered critical for the development of effective alternatives. Without methyl bromide for use as a standard treatment, the research studies can never address the comparative performance of alternatives. This would be a serious impediment to the development of alternative strategies. The U. S. government estimates that orchard replant research will require 1658 kg per year of methyl bromide for 2005 and 2006. This amount of methyl bromide is necessary to conduct research on alternatives and is in addition to the amounts requested in the submitted CUE applications. Two examples are five year field studies on orchard and vineyard comparing methyl bromide to 1,3 D, chloropicrin, iodomethane, fallow, cover crops, solarization, and other treatments for control of nematodes and unknown soilborne pests. Page 59 24. ARE THERE PLANS TO MINIMIZE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE FOR THE CRITICAL USE IN THE FUTURE?

As stated in Section 23, minimizing use of MB can be achieved through the development of technologies to improve efficacy of alternatives, such as deep injection methods or soil moisture management, and still have reasonable cost effectiveness. Even where MB is considered critical, an improvement in efficient delivery techniques will result in reduction of MB use requirements, even though use of MB is only once in the long life of these orchards. Research that is currently being conducted by all of the crop groups of this sector should help identify strategies to most effectively manage replant disorder. The U. S. wants to note that our usage rate is among the lowest in the world in requested sectors and represents efforts of both the government and the user community over many years to reduce use rates and emissions. We will continue to work with the user community in each sector to identify further opportunities to reduce methyl bromide use and emissions.

25. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE NOMINATION?

This methyl bromide critical use exemption nomination for orchard replant has been reviewed by the United States government and meets the guidelines of The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. This use is considered critical because there are no feasible alternatives or substitutes available for nurseries. MB is critical in the numerous orchards where 1,3 D will not be an effective treatment to orchard replant disorder, especially where orchards have medium to heavy soils, and/ or township cap restrictions for 1,3 D. Under these circumstances MB is critical for orchards where 1,3 D is not effective or legal, and the absence of MB will result in a significant burden for the important fruit and nut industries of California.

26. CITATIONS Browne, G. T., Connell, J. H., Bulluck, L. R., Trout, T. J., and Schneider, S. M. 2002a. Management and etiology of replant disorder on almond and peach. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2002). http:// mbao. org/

Browne, G., Trout, T. and Bulluck, R. 2002b. Cultural control and etiology of replant disease of Prunus spp. University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. http:// www. sarep. ucdavis. edu/ grants/ reports/ mebr/ browne/ browne. html Ferris, H. and Walker, M. A. 2002. Development of grape rootstocks with broad and durable nematode resistance. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Final Report ( updated May, 2003). http:// www. sarep. ucdavis. edu/ Grants/ Reports/ MeBr/ Ferris/ ferris. html Page 60 Gan, J., Becker, J. O., Ernst, F. F., Hutchinson, C., Knuteson, J. A., and Yates, S. R. 2000. Surface application of ammonium thiosulfate to reduce 1,3 dichloropropene volatilization from soil. Pest Management Science 56: 264 270.

Martin, F. N. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41: 325 350.

McKenry, M. 2001. Performance of metam sodium drenched to six different replant sites. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2001). http:// mbao. org/

McKenry, M. V. 1999. The replant problem and its management. Contractor for California Association of Nurseryman. Prepared for California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Catalina Publishing, Fresno, California, USA. ( See CUE 03 0013, CUE 03 0014 request packages of California Grape and Tree Fruit League, and CUE 03 0029 request of California Walnut Commission.)

McKenry, M., Buzo, T., Kaku, and S. 1995. First year evaluation of tree and vine growth and nematode development following 17 pre plant treatments. In: University of California Plant Protection Quarterly. Vol. 5, No. 4. http:// www. uckac. edu/ ppq/ PDF/ 95oct. pdf Schneider, S., Trout. T., Browne, G., Ajwa, H., and Sims, J. 2002. Vineyard replant disorder   results after 1,2, and 4 growing seasons. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2002). http:// mbao. org/

Schneider, S., Ajwa, H., Trout. T., and Sims, J. 2000. Alternatives for vineyard replant and grapevine nurseries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2000). http:// mbao. org/

Schneider, Ajwa, H. Trout, T. and Sims, J. 1999. Grape replant disorder   an integrated management approach. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Methyl Bromide Alternatives. http:// www. ars. usda. gov/ is/ np/ mba/ oct99/ grape. htm Trout. T., Ajwa, H., Schneider, S., Gartung, J. 2002. Fumigation and fallowing effects on replant problems in California peach. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives ( 2002). http:// mbao. org/ Page 61 APPENDIX A. 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI). 2001 & 2002 Average % of 2001 &

2002 Average not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available not available Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) % Reduction 553,098 1,645 336 23%

78,944 221 357 52%

95,525 477 200 58%

129,491 355 364 27%

859,758 2,698 319 33%

33% 30%

2006 Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low 336 336 0 0 0 0 60 35 8 2 0 0 50 35 382 357 0 0 0 0 35 35 8 2 0 0 50 35 280 200 0 0 0 0 85 85 8 2 0 0 50 35 364 364 0 0 0 0 50 35 8 2 0 0 50 35 Strip Bed Treatment Currently Use Alternatives? Research /

Transition Plans Tarps /

Deep Injection Used Pest

free Cert.

Requirement Change from Prior CUE Request (+/) Verified Historic MB Use /

State Frequency of Treatment Loss per Hectare (

US$/

ha) Loss per Kilogram of MB (

US$/

kg) Loss as a %

of Gross Revenue Loss as a %

of Net Revenue Y+ N Yes Yes Deep No 0 Yes 1 / 20 No Yes Yes Deep No 0 Yes 1 / 20 No Yes Yes Deep No 0 Yes 1 / 40 Y+ N Yes Yes Deep No + 3 Yes 1 / 20 Alternatives 1,3 D may not be suitable due to soil type, pests or township caps Notes 1 2 3 Conversion Units: 1 Pound = Kilograms Hectare 58%

Average Hectares in the US:

% of Average Hectares Requested: not available not available 92% 58%

Combined Impacts (%)

HIGH 82% 70% 100%

77% LOW 58%

not available not available not available not available % of Requested Hectares Regional Hectares** not available REGION CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits REGION CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes CA Walnut Commission Almond Hullers & Processors Association REGION CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes CA Walnut Commission CA Walnut Commission Almond Hullers & Processors Association REGION CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits % Reduction from Initial Request Adjustments to Requested Amounts Nomination Amount CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruits CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes 0.453592 1 Acre =

Other Considerations Dichotomous Variables ( Y/ N) Other Issues (%) Key Pest Distribution Use Rate ( kg/ ha) (%) Karst Topography 0.404686 CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruit reported historical use rates that were grossly underestimated for normal fumigation use. A use rate of 300 pounds ai/ acre was multiplied by the reported acreage to reflect a more accurate estimate of methyl bro This applicant only replanted every 20 years, so change from 2002 is not necessarily relevant since replant in 2002 reflects status of market in ~ 1982, which was less than planting in 1970s that are now being replanted.

Almond Hullers & Processors Association * Due to the nature of these applications, the historical reported data varies greatly from year to year. Therefore an average of the usage from 1997 through 2001 were used.

CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Stone Fruit requested 8100 acres but only 65% of those acres are fumigated due to strip bed treatment, therefore the acreage was adjusted downward. 1,3 D+ MS/ 1,3 D+ MS+ Pic/ 1,3 D+ Pic 5% Yield Loss 5% Yield Loss 1,3 D+ MS/ 1,3 D+ MS+ Pic/ 1,3 D+ Pic Quality/ Time/ Market Window/

Yield Loss (%)

5% Yield Loss 5% Yield Loss Marginal Strategy 1,3 D+ MS/ 1,3 D+ MS+ Pic/ 1,3 D+ Pic 1,3 D+ MS/ 1,3 D+ MS+ Pic/ 1,3 D+ Pic Unsuitable Terrain (%) Unsuitable Soil (%)

Economic Analysis CA Grape & Tree Fruit League  Grapes CA Walnut Commission Almond Hullers & Processors Association (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones 14%

0% 0% 10% 14% Regulatory Issues (%) 1,107,210 902,527 30% 675,188 47%

1,285,707 1,285,707 1,154,214 1,107,210  97,078 89,312 176,901     136,214 102,603 226,796  90,991 38,727  587,488 415,540 165,561  40,502 8,277  81,747 67,733 716,449

2006 Request () Double Counting () Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison () Use Rate Difference () QPS HIGH LOW MOST LIKELY IMPACT VALUE 2006 Nomination Options Subtractions from Requested Amounts ( kgs) Combined Impacts Adjustment ( kgs)

1,706,048 5,061 317 0%

TOTAL OR AVERAGE 1,285,707 3,859 341 485 200 0%

176,901 486 364 647,587 1,737 373 0%

226,796 809 280 97,078 2,512 336 0%

165,561 433 382 116,782 327 357 0%

716,449 2,131 336 844,600 2006 Amount of Request 1997~ 2001 Average Use* Quarantine and Pre Shipment Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha) Kilograms ( kgs) Hectares ( ha) Use Rate ( kg/ ha)

Sector: ORCHARD REPLANT 2006 Methyl Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI) Date: 2/ 26/ 2004 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Process Page 62 Footnotes for Appendix A: Values may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1. Average Hectares in the US   Average Hectares in the US is the average of 2001 and 2002 total hectares in the US in this crop when available. These figures were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2. % of Average Hectares Requested  Percent (%) of Average Hectares Requested is the total area in the sector's request divided by the Average Hectares in the US. Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 3. 2006 Amount of Request   The 2006 amount of request is the actual amount requested by applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. U. S. units of measure were used to describe the initial request and then were converted to metric units to calculate the amount of the US nomination. 4. 2001 & 2002 Average Use   The 2001 & 2002 Average Use is the average of the 2001 and 2002 historical usage figures provided by the applicants given in total pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide, total acres of methyl bromide use, and application rate in pounds active ingredient of methyl bromide per acre. Adjustments are made when necessary due in part to unavailable 2002 estimates in which case only the 2001 average use figure is used. 5. Quarantine and Pre Shipment   Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the percentage (%) of the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. 6. Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares   Regional Hectares, 2001 & 2002 Average Hectares is the 2001 and 2002 average estimate of hectares within the defined region. These figures are taken from various sources to ensure an accurate estimate. The sources are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from other governmental sources such as the Georgia Acreage estimates. 7. Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage %  Regional Hectares, Requested Acreage % is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request as found in the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS). Note, however, that the NASS categories do not always correspond one to one with the sector nominations in the U. S. CUE nomination ( e. g., roma and cherry tomatoes were included in the applicant's request, but were not included in NASS surveys). Values greater than 100 percent are due to the inclusion of these varieties in the U. S. CUE request that were not included in the USDA NASS: nevertheless, these numbers are often instructive in assessing the requested coverage of applications received from growers. 8. 2006 Nomination Options   2006 Nomination Options are the options of the inclusion of various factors used to adjust the initial applicant request into the nomination figure. 9. Subtractions from Requested Amounts   Subtractions from Requested Amounts are the elements that were subtracted from the initial request amount. 10. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request   Subtractions from Requested Amounts, 2006 Request is the starting point for all calculations. This is the amount of the applicant request in kilograms. 11. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Double Counting is the estimate measured in kilograms in situations where an applicant has made a request for a CUE with an individual application while their consortium has also made a request for a CUE on their behalf in the consortium application. In these cases the double counting is removed from the consortium application and the individual application takes precedence. 12. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison is the greatest reduction of the estimate measured in kilograms of either the difference in the amount of methyl bromide requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically used or treated at a higher use rate or the difference in the 2006 request from an applicant's 2002 CUE application compared with the 2006 request from the applicant's 2003 CUE application. 13. Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS  Subtractions from Requested Amounts, QPS is the estimate measured in kilograms of the request subject to QPS treatments. This subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison then Page 63 multiplied by the percentage subject to QPS treatments. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, QPS = ( 2006 Request   Double Counting   Growth)*( QPS %) 14. Subtraction from Requested Amounts, Use Rate Difference   Subtractions from requested amounts, use rate difference is the estimate measured in kilograms of the lower of the historic use rate or the requested use rate. The subtraction estimate is calculated as the 2006 Request minus Double Counting, minus Growth or 2002 CUE Comparison, minus the QPS amount, if applicable, minus the difference between the requested use rate and the lowest use rate applied to the remaining hectares. 15. Adjustments to Requested Amounts   Adjustments to requested amounts were factors that reduced to total amount of methyl bromide requested by factoring in the specific situations were the applicant could use alternatives to methyl bromide. These are calculated as proportions of the total request. We have tried to make the adjustment to the requested amounts in the most appropriate category when the adjustment could fall into more than one category. 16. (%) Karst topography   Percent karst topography is the proportion of the land area in a nomination that is characterized by karst formations. In these areas, the groundwater can easily become contaminated by pesticides or their residues. Regulations are often in place to control the use of pesticide of concern. Dade County, Florida, has a ban on the use of 1,3D due to its karst topography. 17. (%) 100 ft Buffer Zones   Percentage of the acreage of a field where certain alternatives to methyl bromide cannot be used due the requirement that a 100 foot buffer be maintained between the application site and any inhabited structure. 18. (%) Key Pest Impacts  Percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by MB alternatives. For example, the key pest in Michigan peppers, Phytophthora spp. infests approximately 30% of the vegetable growing area. In southern states the key pest in peppers is nutsedge. 19. Regulatory Issues (%)  Regulatory issues (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps) pursuant to state and local limits on their use. 20. Unsuitable Terrain (%)   Unsuitable terrain (%) is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance) or terrain configuration, such as hilly terrain. Where the use of alternatives poses application and coverage problems. 21. Cold Soil Temperatures   Cold soil temperatures is the proportion of the requested acreage where soil temperatures remain too low to enable the use of methyl bromide alternatives and still have sufficient time to produce the normal ( one or two) number of crops per season or to allow harvest sufficiently early to obtain the high prices prevailing in the local market at the beginning of the season. 22. Combined Impacts (%)  Total combined impacts are the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, soil impacts, temperature, etc. In each case the total area impacted is the conjoined area that is impacted by any individual impact. The effects were assumed to be independently distributed unless contrary evidence was available ( e. g., affects are known to be mutually exclusive). For example, if 50% of the requested area had moderate to severe key pest pressure and 50% of the requested area had karst topography, then 75% of the area was assumed to require methyl bromide rather than the alternative. This was calculated as follows: 50% affected by key pests and an additional 25% ( 50% of 50%) affected by karst topography. 23. Qualifying Area  Qualifying area ( ha) is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares by the combined impacts. 24. Use Rate  Use rate is the lower of requested use rate for 2006 or the historic average use rate. 25. CUE Nominated amount  CUE nominated amount is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. 26. Percent Reduction  Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. 27. Sum of CUE Nominations in Sector  Self explanatory. 28. Total US Sector Nomination  Total U. S. sector nomination is the most likely estimate of the amount needed in that sector. 29. Dichotomous Variables   dichotomous variables are those which take one of two values, for example, 0 or 1, yes or no. These variables were used to categorize the uses during the preparation of the nomination. 30. Strip Bed Treatment   Strip bed treatment is ` yes' if the applicant uses such treatment, no otherwise. 31. Currently Use Alternatives   Currently use alternatives is ` yes' if the applicant uses alternatives for some portion of pesticide use on the crop for which an application to use methyl bromide is made. Page 64 32. Research/ Transition Plans   Research/ Transition Plans is ` yes' when the applicant has indicated that there is research underway to test alternatives or if applicant has a plan to transition to alternatives. 33. Tarps/ Deep Injection Used   Because all pre plant methyl bromide use in the US is either with tarps or by deep injection, this variable takes on the value ` tarp' when tarps are used and ` deep' when deep injection is used. 34. Pest free cert. Required  This variable is a ` yes' when the product must be certified as ` pest free' in order to be sold 35. Other Issues. Other issues is a short reminder of other elements of an application that were checked 36. Change from Prior CUE Request This variable takes a `+' if the current request is larger than the previous request, a ` 0' if the current request is equal to the previous request, and a `` if the current request is smaller that the previous request. 37. Verified Historic Use/ State This item indicates whether the amounts requested by administrative area have been compared to records of historic use in that area. 38. Frequency of Treatment   This indicates how often methyl bromide is applied in the sector. Frequency varies from multiple times per year to once in several decades. 39. Economic Analysis   provides summary economic information for the applications. 40. Loss per Hectare   This measures the total loss per hectare when a specific alternative is used in place of methyl bromide. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 41. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide   This measures the total loss per kilogram of methyl bromide when it is replaced with an alternative. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 42. Loss as a % of Gross revenue   This measures the loss as a proportion of gross ( total) revenue. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. 43. Loss as a % of Net Operating Revenue  This measures loss as a proportion of total revenue minus operating costs. Loss comprises both the monetized value of yield loss ( relative to yields obtained with methyl bromide) and any additional costs incurred through use of the alternative. It is measured in current US dollars. This item is also called net cash returns. 44. Quality/ Time/ Market Window/ Yield Loss (%)   When this measure is available it measures the sum of losses including quality losses, non productive time, missed market windows and other yield losses when using the marginal strategy. 45. Marginal Strategy  This is the strategy that a particular methyl bromide user would use if not permitted to use methyl bromide. Page 65 APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF NEW APPLICANTS A number of new groups applied for methyl bromide for 2005 during this application cycle, as shown in the table below. Although in most cases they represent additional amounts for sectors that were already well characterized sectors, in a few cases they comprised new sectors. Examples of the former include significant additional country ( cured, uncooked) ham production; some additional request for tobacco transplant trays, and very minor amounts for pepper and eggplant production in lieu of tomato production in Michigan.

For the latter, there are two large requests: cut flower and foliage production in Florida and California (` Ornamentals') and a group of structures and process foods that we have termed ` Post Harvest NPMA' which includes processed ( generally wheat based foods), spices and herbs, cocoa, dried milk, cheeses and small amounts of other commodities. There was also a small amount requested for field grown tobacco.

The details of the case that there are no alternatives which are both technically and economically feasible are presented in the appropriate sector chapters, as are the requested amounts, suitably adjusted to ensure that no double counting, growth, etc. were included and that the amount was only sufficient to cover situations ( key pests, regulatory requirements, etc.) where alternatives could not be used.

The amount requested by new applicants is approximately 2.5% of the 1991 U. S. baseline, or about 1,400,000 pounds of methyl bromide, divided 40% for pre plant uses and 60% for postharvest needs.

The methodology for deriving the nominated amount used estimates that would result in the lowest amount of methyl bromide requested from the range produced by the analysis to ensure that adequate amounts of methyl bromide were available for critical needs. We are requesting additional methyl bromide in the amount of about 500,000 Kg, or 2% or the 1991 U. S. baseline, to provide for the additional critical needs in the pre plant and post harvest sector.

Applicant Name 2005 U. S. CUE Nomination ( lbs)

California Cut Flower Commission 400,000 National Country Ham Association 1,172 Wayco Ham Company 39 California Date Commission 5,319 National Pest Management Association 319,369 Michigan Pepper Growers 20,904 Michigan Eggplant Growers 6,968 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Transplant Trays 2,254 Burley & Dark Tobacco Growers USA  Field Grown 28,980 Virginia Tobacco Growers  Transplant Trays 941 Michigan Herbaceous Perennials 4,200 Page 66 Ozark Country Hams 240 Nahunta Pork Center 248 American Association of Meat Processors 296,800 Total lbs 1,087,434 Total kgs 493,252


[Federal Register: October 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 58082-58084]
[DOCID:fr12oc07-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163; FRL-8152-3]

Aldicarb Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for the N-methyl carbamate pesticide
aldicarb, and opens a public comment period on this document. The
Agency's risk assessments and other related documents also are
available in the aldicarb Docket. Aldicarb is a restricted use systemic
insecticide, acaricide and nematicide used to control various insect
species, including nematodes. Aldicarb is registered for use on
agricultural crops including citrus, cotton, dry beans, peanuts,
pecans, potatoes, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beets, sugarcane, sweet
potatoes, and seed alfalfa (CA). In addition, aldicarb may be applied
to field grown ornamentals (CA) and tobacco, and on coffee grown in
Puerto Rico. There are no aldicarb products intended for sale to
homeowners or for use in residential settings. EPA has reviewed
aldicarb through the public participation process that the Agency uses
to involve the

public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance
reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that
all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0163. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the 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 automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Overstreet, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<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
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may 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
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 ID 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. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a RED for the N-methyl carbamate pesticide, aldicarb
under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Aldicarb is a restricted use
systemic insecticide, acaricide and nematicide used to control various
insect species. Aldicarb is registered for

use on agricultural crops including citrus, cotton, dry beans, peanuts,
pecans, potatoes, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beets, sugarcane, sweet
potatoes, and seed alfalfa (CA). In addition, aldicarb may be applied
to field grown ornamentals (CA) and tobacco, and on coffee grown in
Puerto Rico. There are no aldicarb products intended for sale to
homeowners or for use in residential settings. EPA has determined that
the data base to support reregistration is substantially complete and
that products containing aldicarb are eligible for reregistration
provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner described in the
RED or by another means that achieves equivalent risk reduction. Upon
submission of any required product specific data under section
4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the registration and
labeling (either to address concerns identified in the RED or as a
result of product specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration
decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of FIFRA for products containing
aldicarb.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, aldicarb was reviewed
through the full 6-Phase process. Through this process, EPA worked
extensively with stakeholders and the public to reach the regulatory
decisions for aldicarb.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is issuing the aldicarb
RED for public comment. This comment period is intended to provide an
additional opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be submitted
using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or
before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency
Docket for aldicarb. Comments received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these
late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the
Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the
document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the RED in the Federal
Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the
aldicarb RED will be implemented as it is now presented.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration, before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: October 3, 2007.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-20105 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S