44767 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices slides for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting ( unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the committee for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/ contact information noted above in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e mail ( acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files ( in IBM PC/ Windows 95/ 98 format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution. Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access these meetings, should contact Dr. Nugent at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Dated: July 22, 2003. Vanessa T. Vu, Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [ FR Doc. 03   19277 Filed 7   29   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0327; FRL   7284   6]

Pesticide Reregistration Performance Measures and Goals AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's progress in meeting its performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration during fiscal year 2002. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) requires EPA to publish information about EPA's annual achievements in this area. This notice discusses the integration of tolerance reassessment with the reregistration process, and describes the status of various regulatory activities associated with reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The notice gives total numbers of chemicals and products reregistered, tolerances reassessed, Data Call Ins issued, and products registered under the `` fasttrack provisions of FIFRA. Finally, this notice contains the schedule for completion of activities for specific chemicals during fiscal years 2003 and 2004. DATES: This notice is not subject to a formal comment period. Nevertheless, EPA welcomes input from stakeholders and the general public. Written comments, identified by the docket ID number [ OPP   2002   0327], should be received on or before September 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol P. Stangel, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: ( 703) 308   8007, e mail: stangel. carol@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Important Information A. Does this Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who are interested in the progress and status of EPA's pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs, 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 information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of Support Documents?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2002   0327. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. To access information about pesticide reregistration, go to the home page for the Office of Pesticide Programs at www. epa. gov/ pesticides and select `` Reregistration'' under `` Regulating Pesticides,'' or go directly to www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44768 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment, and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 2. EPA Dockets   i. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0327. The system is an, `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0327. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0327. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2002   0327. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

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

II. Background EPA must establish and publish in the Federal Register its annual performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited registration, under section 4( l) of FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA). Specifically, such measures and goals are to include:   The status of reregistration.   The number of products reregistered, canceled, or amended.   The number and type of data requests or Data Call In ( DCI) notices under section 3( c)( 2)( B) issued to support product reregistration by active ingredient.   Progress in reducing the number of unreviewed, required reregistration studies.   The aggregate status of tolerances reassessed.   The number of applications for registration submitted under subsection ( k)( 3), expedited processing and review of similar applications, that were approved or disapproved.   The future schedule for reregistrations in the current and succeeding fiscal year.   The projected year of completion of the reregistrations under section 4. FIFRA, as amended in 1988, authorizes EPA to conduct a comprehensive pesticide reregistration program a complete review of the human health and environmental effects of older pesticides originally registered before November 1, 1984. Pesticides meeting today's scientific and regulatory VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44769 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices standards may be declared `` eligible'' for reregistration. To be eligible, an older pesticide must have a substantially complete data base, and must not cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment when used according to Agency approved label directions and precautions. In addition, all pesticides with food uses must meet the safety standard of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) 21 U. S. C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. Under FFDCA, EPA must make a determination that pesticide residues remaining in or on food are `` safe''; that is, `` that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue'' from dietary and other sources. In determining allowable levels of pesticide residues in food, EPA must perform a more comprehensive assessment of each pesticide's risks, considering:   Aggregate exposure ( from food, drinking water, and residential uses).   Cumulative effects from all pesticides sharing a common mechanism of toxicity.   Possible increased susceptibility of infants and children; and   Possible endocrine or estrogenic effects. As amended by FQPA, FFDCA requires the reassessment of all existing tolerances ( pesticide residue limits in food) and tolerance exemptions within 10 years, to ensure that they meet the safety standard of the law. EPA was directed to give priority to the review of those pesticides that appear to pose the greatest risk to public health, and to reassess 33% of the 9,721 existing tolerances and exemptions within 3 years ( by August 3, 1999), 66% within 6 years ( by August 3, 2002), and 100% in 10 years ( by August 3, 2006). ( Note: Although the total number of tolerances existing on August 3, 1996, and subject to FQPA reassessment was initially reported as 9,728, that number has been corrected to 9,721, based on the Agency's Tolerance Reassessment Tracking System.) EPA is meeting the FFDCA's tolerance reassessment requirements through reregistration and several other program activities. In making reregistration eligibility decisions, the Agency also is completing much of tolerance reassessment, which is helping us meet the time frames mandated by the new law. EPA reassessed the first 33% of all food tolerances by August 3, 1999, and the second 33% of all food tolerances by August 3, 2002. EPA is focusing particularly on priority Group 1 pesticides, those identified as posing the greatest potential risks. Over half of the universe of tolerances to be reassessed are included in this category, including tolerances for the organophosphate ( OP) pesticides, the Agency's highest priority for review. Carbamate, organochlorine, and B2 ( probable human) carcinogen pesticides also are included in priority Group 1. Although EPA is directing most of its resources toward this group, a number of Group 1 pesticides will nevertheless be reassessed in the third 33% owing to the challenging issues they present. EPA's approach to tolerance reassessment under FFDCA, including the three priority Groups, is described fully in the Agency's document, `` Raw and Processed Food Schedule for Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment'' ( 62 FR 42020, August 4, 1997) ( FRL   5734   6). In conducting the pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs at present, EPA is developing measures that show results in terms of outcomes, as well as traditional outputs, as directed by OMB.

III. FQPA and Program Accountability One of the hallmarks of the FQPA amendments to the FFDCA is enhanced accountability. Through this summary of performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited registration, EPA describes progress made during the past year in each of the program areas included in FIFRA section 4( l).

A. Status of Reregistration During fiscal year ( FY) 2002 ( from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002), EPA made significant progress in completing risk assessments and risk management decisions for the OP pesticides, the Agency's highest priority chemicals for reregistration and tolerance reassessment, and for other pesticides. See Table 1.

TABLE 1.   REREGISTRATION/ RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS COMPLETED: FY 2002 AND TOTAL FY 2002: 36 Decisions Total, End of FY 2002 7 REDs 1,4 Bis( bromoacetoxy) 2 butene Endosulfan1 Fenamiphos ( Voluntary Cancellation) 2 ( HOCH2) methyldithiocarbamate ( Voluntary Cancellation) Lindane1 Oxyfluorfen Thiabendazole 214 REDs 8 IREDs Azinphos methyl1,2 Diazinon1,2 Dicrotophos2 Disulfoton2 Methamidophos2 Naled2 Oxydemeton methyl2 Phosmet1,2 21 IREDs VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44770 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices TABLE 1.   REREGISTRATION/ RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS COMPLETED: FY 2002 AND TOTAL   Continued FY 2002: 36 Decisions Total, End of FY 2002 21 TREDs Asulam Calcium hypochlorite Chlorine gas Chlorpropham Difenzoquat Diquat dibromide Diuron ( RED to be completed in FY 2003) Fenarimol Fenbutatin oxide Hexazinone Imazalil ( RED to be completed in FY 2003) Linuron Metolachlor Norflurazon Primisulfuron methyl Pronamide Propanil ( RED to be completed in FY 2003) Sodium hypochlorite Tebuthiuron Tetrachlorvinphos2 Urea 32 TREDs 1Subject to NRDC consent decree 2Organophosphate ( OP) pesticide The Agency's decisions are embodied in Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) documents, Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( IREDs), or Reports on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions ( TREDs). 1. REDs. Through the reregistration program, EPA is reviewing current scientific data for older pesticides ( those initially registered before November 1984), reassessing their effects on human health and the environment, and requiring risk mitigation measures as necessary. Pesticides that have sufficient supporting data and whose risks can be successfully mitigated may be declared `` eligible'' for reregistration. EPA presents these pesticide findings in a RED document. i. Overall RED progress. EPA's overall progress at the end of FY 2002 in completing Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) is summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2.   OVERALL RED PROGRESS, END OF FY 2002 REDs completed 214 ( 35%)

Cases canceled 231 ( 38%)

REDs to be completed 167 ( 27%)

Total reregistration cases 612 ( 100%)

ii. Profile of completed REDs. A profile of the 214 REDs completed by the end of FY 2002 is presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3.   PROFILE OF 214 REDS COMPLETED, END OF FY 2002 Pesticide active ingredients 313 Pesticide products 8,600+

REDs with food uses 107 Post FQPA REDs 73 Post FQPA REDs with food uses 54 Tolerance reassessments completed for post FQPA REDs* 1,322 * EPA is revisiting tolerances associated with the 53 food use REDs that were completed before FQPA was enacted to ensure that they meet the safety standard of the new law, as set forth in the Agency's August 4, 1997, Schedule for Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment.

iii. Risk reduction in REDs. Reducing pesticide risks is an important aspect of the reregistration program. In developing REDs, EPA works with stakeholders including pesticide registrants, growers and other pesticide users, and environmental and public health interests, as well as the States, USDA, and other Federal agencies and others to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce risks of concern. Almost every RED includes some measures or modifications to reduce risks. The options for such risk reduction are extensive and include voluntary cancellation of pesticide products or deletion of uses; declaring certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible ( and then proceeding with follow up action to cancel the uses or require additional supporting data); restricting use of products to certified applicators; limiting the amount or frequency of use; improving use directions and precautions; adding more protective clothing and equipment requirements; requiring special packaging or engineering controls; requiring notreatment buffer zones; employing ground water, surface water, or other environmental and ecological safeguards; and other measures. 2. Interim REDs or IREDs. EPA issues IREDs for pesticides that are undergoing reregistration, require a reregistration eligibility decision, and also must be included in a cumulative assessment under FQPA because they are part of a group of pesticides that share a common mechanism of toxicity. An IRED is issued for each individual pesticide in the cumulative group when EPA completes the pesticide's risk assessment and interim risk management decision. An IRED may include measures to reduce food, drinking water, residential, occupational, and/ or ecological risks, to gain the benefit of these changes before the final RED can be issued following the Agency's consideration of cumulative risks. For example, EPA generally does not consider individual VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44771 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices OP or N methyl carbamate pesticide decisions to be completed REDs or tolerance reassessments. Instead, the Agency is issuing IREDs for these chemicals at this time. EPA will make final decisions and may issue REDs for these pesticides when the cumulative risks of the OPs or carbamates have been considered. Once the Agency completes a cumulative evaluation of the OPs, final decisions will be made and REDs may be issued for the 24 OP pesticides that initially had IREDs. 3. Tolerance reassessment `` TREDs.'' EPA issues Reports on FFDCA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions, known as TREDs, for pesticides that require tolerance reassessment decisions under FFDCA, but do not require a reregistration eligibility decision at present because:   The pesticide was first registered after November 1984 and is considered a `` new'' active ingredient, not subject to reregistration ( e. g., fenarimol and primisulfuron methyl in FY 2002);   EPA completed a RED for the pesticide before FQPA was enacted ( most FY 2002 TREDs are in this post RED category); or   The pesticide is not registered for use in the U. S. but tolerances are established that allow crops treated with the pesticide to be imported from other countries ( e. g., mevinphos). During FY 2002, EPA also completed TREDs for three pesticides ( diuron, imazalil, and propanil) whose REDs are under development. The Agency expects to complete REDs for these pesticides in FY 2003. As with IREDs, EPA will not take final action on pesticides subject to TREDs that are part of a cumulative group until cumulative risks have been considered for the group. 4. Goals for FY 2003 and future years. EPA's major pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment goals for FY 2003 and future years are as follows. In addition to achieving these traditional output oriented goals, EPA also is working to develop measures that show results in terms of outcomes, as directed by OMB. i. Complete individual pesticide risk management decisions. EPA's goal in conducting the reregistration and tolerance reassessment program is to complete 20   35 Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs) and Interim REDs each year during fiscal years 2003 through 2006, giving priority to pesticides with associated tolerances. Candidate pesticides for these decisions are listed near the end of this document. ii. Evaluate OP and other cumulative risks. EPA began developing methods for cumulative risk assessment and the components of a cumulative risk assessment for the OP pesticides soon after FQPA was enacted in August 1996, although the Agency had begun considering this approach earlier, when it was recommended by NAS in their 1993 report, `` Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.'' These efforts came to fruition in FY 2002. In addition to completing most of the remaining risk assessments and risk management decisions for individual OP pesticides, EPA issued the preliminary OP cumulative risk assessment in December 2001. After considering public comment, stakeholder input, and the results of additional scientific review, EPA issued a revised OP cumulative risk assessment in June 2002 and has begun risk management actions based on this revised assessment. The Agency plans to review public and SAP comments on the revised cumulative risk assessment as well as examine newly submitted data in further evaluating OP cumulative risks during 2003. The Agency then may issue final reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions for individual OP pesticides with IREDs and TREDs. Consideration of the cumulative risks of N methylcarbamates, chloroacetanilides, and perhaps other common mechanism groups of pesticides will follow. For further information, see EPA's cumulative risk website, http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/. iii. Complete 100% of tolerance reassessment decisions. EPA is continuing to reassess tolerances within time frames set forth in FFDCA as amended by FQPA, giving priority to those food use pesticides that appear to pose the greatest risk. Integration of the reregistration and tolerance reassessment programs has added complexity to the reregistration process for food use pesticides. The Agency successfully reached its first two tolerance reassessment milestones by completing over 33% of all tolerance reassessment decisions by August 3, 1999, and over 66% by August 3, 2002. EPA is working toward meeting the final FQPA tolerance reassessment goal: To complete 100% of all required tolerance reassessment decisions by August 3, 2006.

B. Product Reregistration; Numbers of Products Reregistered, Canceled, and Amended At the end of the reregistration process, after EPA has issued a RED and declared a pesticide reregistration case eligible for reregistration, individual end use products that contain pesticide active ingredients included in the case still must be reregistered. This concluding part of the reregistration process is called `` product reregistration.'' In issuing a completed RED document, EPA sends registrants a Data Call In ( DCI) notice requesting any product specific data and specific revised labeling needed to make final reregistration decisions for each of the individual pesticide products covered by the RED. Based on the results of EPA's review of these data and labeling, products found to meet FIFRA and FFDCA standards may be reregistered. A variety of outcomes are possible for pesticide products completing this final phase of the reregistration process. Ideally, in response to the DCI notice accompanying the RED document, the pesticide producer, or registrant, will submit the required product specific data and revised labeling, which EPA will review and find acceptable. At that point, the Agency may reregister the pesticide product. If, however, the product contains multiple active ingredients, the Agency instead issues an amendment to the product's registration, incorporating the labeling changes specified in the RED; a product with multiple active ingredients may not be fully reregistered until the last active ingredient in its formulation is eligible for reregistration. In other situations, the Agency may temporarily suspend a product's registration if the registrant has not submitted required product specific studies within the time frame specified. The Agency may cancel a product's registration because the registrant did not pay the required registration maintenance fee. Alternatively, the registrant may request a voluntary cancellation of their end use product registration. 1. Product reregistration actions in FY 2002. EPA counts each of the post RED product outcomes described above as a product reregistration action. A single pesticide product may be the subject of several product reregistration actions within the same year. For example, a product's registration initially may be amended, then the product may be reregistered, and later the product may be voluntarily canceled, all within the same year. During FY 2002, EPA completed the product reregistration actions detailed in Table 4. The program's goal is to complete 400   450 product reregistration actions in FY 2003.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44772 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices TABLE 4.   PRODUCT REREGISTRATION ACTIONS COMPLETED DURING FY 2002 Product reregistration actions 77 Product amendment actions 51 Product cancellation actions 186 Total actions 314 2. Status of the product reregistration universe. The status of the universe of pesticide products subject to reregistration at the end of FY 2002 is shown in Table 5 below. This overall status information is not `` cumulative''  it is not derived from summing up a series of annual actions. Adding annual actions would result in a larger overall number since each individual product is subject to multiple actions it can be amended, reregistered, and/ or canceled, over time. Instead, the `` big picture'' status information in Table 5 should be considered a snapshot in time. As registrants and EPA make marketing and regulatory decisions in the future, the status of individual products may change, and numbers in this table are expected to fluctuate. TABLE 5.   STATUS OF THE UNIVERSE OF PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO PRODUCT REREGISTRATION, FOR FY 2002 ( AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002)

Products reregistered 1,637 Products amended 345 Products canceled 3,806 Products sent for suspension 12 Total products with actions completed 5,800 Products with actions pending 2,817 Total products in product reregistration universe 8,617 The universe of 8,617 products in product reregistration at the end of FY 2002 represented an increase of 745 products from the FY 2001 universe of 7,872 products. The increase consists of 324 products associated with FY 2002 REDs, and 412 products associated with IREDs, plus 9 products that were added as a result of DCI activities and processing for several previously issued REDs and IREDs. At the end of FY 2002, 2,817 products had product reregistration decisions pending. Some pending products await science reviews, label reviews, or reregistration decisions by EPA. Others are not yet ready for product reregistration actions; they are associated with more recently completed REDs, and their productspecific data are not yet due to be submitted to or reviewed by the Agency. EPA's goal is to complete 400   450 product reregistration actions during fiscal year 2003.

C. Number and Type of DCIs to Support Product Reregistration by Active Ingredient 1. DCIs for REDs. The number and type of data call in requests or DCIs that EPA is preparing to issue under FIFRA section 3( c)( 2)( B) to support product reregistration for pesticide active ingredients included in FY 2002 REDs are shown in Table 6. Starting in FY 2001, for the first time, OMB clearance has been required to issue REDs and IREDs. Since the Fenamiphos and ( HOCH2) methyldithiocarbamate REDs consisted of voluntary cancellations, products containing these pesticides will not be reregistered and therefore do not require DCIs.

TABLE 6.   DCIS PREPARED TO SUPPORT PRODUCT REREGISTRATION FOR FY 2002 REDS Case Number Case Name Number of Products Covered by the RED1 Number of Product Chemistry Studies Required2 Number of Acute Toxicology Studies Required3 Number of Efficacy Studies Required 3030 1,4 Bis( bromoacetoxy) 2 butene 2 22 12 ( 6 studies x 2 products)

0014 Endosulfan 98 ( includes 4 SLN products) 22 102 ( 7 batches/ 10 not batched) 0 0333 Fenamiphos ( Voluntary Cancellation) 15 N/ A N/ A N/ A 3076 ( HOCH2) methyldithiocarbamate ( Voluntary Cancellation 0 N/ A N/ A N/ A 0315 Lindane 29 22 126 ( 5 batches/ 16 not batched) 0 2490 Oxyfluorfen 117 ( includes 8 SLN products) 22 60 ( 4 batches/ 6 not batched) 0 2670 Thiabendazole 63 22 144 ( 4 batches/ 20 not batched) 0 1The number of registered products containing a pesticide active ingredient can change over time. The number of products that appears in the RED document ( counted when the RED is signed) may be different than the number of products that EPA is tracking for product reregistration ( counted later, when the RED is issued). This table reflects the final number of products associated with each RED, as they are being tracked for product reregistration. 2This column shows the number of product chemistry studies that are required for each product covered by the RED.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44773 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices 3In an effort to reduce the time, resources, and number of animals needed to fulfill acute toxicity data requirements, EPA `` batches'' products that can be considered similar from an acute toxicity standpoint. For example, one batch could contain five products. In this instance, if six acute toxicology studies usually were required per product, only six studies ( rather than 30 studies) would be required for the entire batch. Factors considered in the sorting process include each product's active and inert ingredients ( e. g., identity, percent composition, and biological activity), type of formulation ( e. g., emulsifiable concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular), and labeling ( e. g., signal word, use classification, precautionary labeling). The Agency does not describe batched products as `` substantially similar,'' because all products within a batch may not be considered chemically similar or have identical use patterns.

2. DCIs for IREDs. The number and type of data requests or DCIs that EPA is preparing to issue to support product reregistration for pesticide active ingredients included in FY 2002 Interim REDs ( IREDs) are shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7.   DCIS PREPARED TO SUPPORT PRODUCT REREGISTRATION FOR FY 2002 IREDS Case Number Case Name Number of Products Covered by the IRED Number of Product Chemistry Studies Required Number of Acute Toxicology Studies Required Number of Efficacy Studies Required 0235 Azinphos methyl 24 22 54 ( 4 batches/ 5 not batched) 0 0238 Diazinon 182 22 186 ( 15 batches/ 16 not batched) 0 0145 Dicrotophos 3 22 6 ( 1 batch)

0102 Disulfoton 62 22 114 ( 4 batches/ 15 not batched) 0 0043 Methamidophos 47 22 24 ( 1 batch/ 3 not batched) 0 0092 Naled 35 22 78 ( 2 batches/ 11 not batched) 2 0258 Oxydemeton methyl 19 ( includes 2 SLN products) 22 12 ( 2 batches) 0 0242 Phosmet 40 22 42 ( 6 batches/ 1 not batched) 2 Note: FIFRA section 24( c) or Special Local Need ( SLN) registrations are not included in acute toxicity batchings because they are supported by a valid parent product ( section 3) registration.

3. DCIs not needed for TREDs. The Agency does not issue product specific data requests or DCIs for pesticides included in tolerance reassessment decisions or TREDs because, at present, these pesticides do not require product reregistration decisions; they are subject to tolerance reassessment only. D. Progress in Reducing the Number of Unreviewed, Required Reregistration Studies EPA is making progress in reviewing scientific studies submitted by pesticide registrants in support of pesticides undergoing reregistration. See Table 8.

TABLE 8.   REVIEW STATUS OF STUDIES SUBMITTED FOR PESTICIDE REREGISTRATION, END OF FY 2002 Pesticide Reregistration Group or List, per FIFRA Section 4( c)( 2) Studies Reviewed + Extraneous1 Studies Awaiting Review Total Studies Received List A 11,237 + 470 = 11,707 ( 84%) 2,201 ( 16%) 13,908 List B 6,453 + 746 = 7,199 ( 75%) 2,408 ( 25%) 9,607 List C 2,271 + 239 = 2,510 ( 73%) 938 ( 27%) 3,448 List D 1,342 + 94 = 1,436 ( 82%) 308 ( 18%) 1,744 Total Lists A  D 21,303 + 1,549 = 22,852 ( 80%) 5,855 ( 20%) 28,707 1Extraneous studies is a term used to classify those studies that are not needed because the guideline or data requirement has been satisfied by other studies or has changed.

Studies reviewed by EPA increased ( or the study review `` backlog'' decreased) during FY 2002. At the end of the fiscal year, over 80% of all studies received by the Agency in support of reregistration had been reviewed, compared to 79% at the end of FY 2001. During FY 2002, the Agency continued an effort to clean up the data base used to track the review status of studies submitted for reregistration. The percent of studies reviewed should continue to increase in future years.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44774 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices E. Aggregate Status of Tolerances Reassessed During FY 2002, EPA completed 2,649 tolerance reassessments and ended the fiscal year with a total of 6,499 tolerance reassessment decisions to date, addressing almost 67% of the 9,721 tolerances that require reassessment ( See Table 9). Over 60% of the tolerance reassessment decisions completed were for pesticides in priority Group 1. Just as EPA reassessed over 33% of all food tolerances by August 3, 1999, including many tolerances for pesticides identified as posing the greatest potential risks, the Agency also met the next FQPA goal during FY 2002 and completed over 66% of all required tolerance reassessment decisions by August 3, 2002. EPA's general schedule for tolerance reassessment ( Federal Register, August 4, 1997) identified three groups of pesticides to be reviewed; this grouping continues to reflect the Agency's overall scheduling priorities. In completing tolerance reassessment, EPA continues to give priority to pesticides in Group 1. 1. Aggregate accomplishments through reregistration and other programs. EPA is accomplishing tolerance reassessment through the registration and reregistration programs; by revoking tolerances for pesticides that have been canceled ( many as a result of reregistration); by reevaluating pesticides with pre FQPA REDs, and through other decisions not directly related to registration or reregistration, described further below. EPA is using the Tolerance Reassessment Tracking System ( TORTS) to compile this updated information and report on the status of tolerance reassessment ( See Table 9).

TABLE 9.   TOLERANCE REASSESSMENTS COMPLETED POST FQPA BY FISCAL YEAR, THROUGH FY 2002 Tolerances Reassessed Through... During Late FY 96 During FY 1997 During FY 1998 During FY 1999 During FY 2000 During FY 2001 During FY 2002 Total, End of FY 2002 Reregistration/ REDs 25 339 278 359 44 46 231 1,322 Tolerance Reassessments TREDs       776 776 Registration 0 221 308 341 55 215 200 1,340 Tolerance revocations 3 0 812 513 22 35 545 1,930 Other decisions 0 1 0 233 0 0 897 1,131 Total tolerances reassessed 28 561 1,398 1,446 121 296 2,649 6,499 i. Reregistration/ REDs. EPA is using the reregistration program to accomplish much of tolerance reassessment. For each of the tolerance reassessment decisions made through REDs since FQPA, the Agency has made the finding as to whether there is a reasonable certainty of no harm, as required by FFDCA. Many tolerances reassessed through reregistration remain the same while others may be raised, lowered, or revoked. ii. Tolerance reassessments/ TREDs. Tolerances initially evaluated through REDs that were completed before FQPA was enacted in August 1996 now are being reassessed to ensure that they meet the new FFDCA safety standard. EPA issues these post RED tolerance reassessment decisions as TREDs. The Agency also issues TREDs summarizing tolerance reassessment decisions for some developing REDs, for new pesticide active ingredients not subject to reregistration, and for pesticides with import tolerances only. Tolerance reassessments in TREDs for pesticides that are not part of a cumulative group ( i. e., pesticides that are not OPs or carbamates) may be counted at present and are included in the FY 2002 accomplishments. In completing OP IREDs and TREDs during FY 2002, the Agency also completed tolerance reassessment decisions for these pesticides. Many of these tolerance reassessments will not become final, however, until EPA completes a cumulative evaluation of the OPs. iii. Registration. Like older pesticides, all new pesticide registrations must meet the safety standard of FFDCA. Many of the registration applications EPA receives are for new uses of pesticides already registered for other uses. To reach a decision on a proposed new food use of an already registered pesticide, EPA must reassess the existing tolerances, as well as the proposed new tolerances, to make sure there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the public from aggregate exposure from all uses. During FY 2002, the Agency has continued to discourage submission of applications and petitions for any new uses of the OP pesticides, given the need to consider cumulative risks from OP's as a group before any new uses can be fully evaluated. iv. Tolerance revocations. Revoked tolerances represent uses of many different pesticide active ingredients that have been canceled in the past. Some pesticides were canceled due to the Agency's risk concerns. Others were canceled voluntarily by their manufacturers, based on lack of support for reregistration. Tolerance revocations are important even if there are no domestic uses of a pesticide because residues in or on imported commodities treated with the chemical could still present dietary risks that may exceed the FFDCA `` reasonable certainty of no harm'' standard, either individually or cumulatively with other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity. v. Other reassessment decisions. In addition to the types of reassessment actions described above, a total of 1,131 additional tolerance reassessment decisions have been made, not directly related to registration or reregistration. A list of these other tolerance reassessment decisions with their Federal Register citations is available in the docket for this Federal Register notice. 2. Accomplishments for priority pesticides. During FY 2002, EPA completed tolerance reassessment decisions for many high priority pesticides in review, including OPs, carbamates, organochlorines, and carcinogens. ( See Table 10.)

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44775 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices TABLE 10.   TOLERANCE REASSESSMENTS COMPLETED FOR PRIORITY PESTICIDES Pesticide Class Tolerances to be Reassessed Reassessed by End of FY 2002 Organophosphates 1,691 1,127 ( 66.65%)

Carbamates 545 303 ( 55.6%)

Organochlorines 253 253 ( 100%)

Carcinogens 2,008 1,278 ( 63.65%)

High hazard inerts 5 3 ( 60%)

Other 5,219

Total 9,721 6,499 ( 66.86%)

3. Tolerance reassessment and the organophosphates. EPA has developed an approach for assessing cumulative risk for the OPs as a group, as required by FFDCA, and applied this methodology in conducting the OP cumulative risk assessment during FY 2002. The Agency presented a comprehensive guidance document on cumulative risk assessment to the Scientific Advisory Panel in December 1999, issued draft guidance in 2000 for review and comment, and presented a case study on cumulative risk assessment to the SAP in December 2000. In 2001, EPA refined the methodology and began developing components of the OP cumulative preliminary risk assessment. With input from the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition ( CARAT) workgroup, the Agency developed a process to inform stakeholders and encourage their participation during the assessment of OP cumulative risks. At CARAT's recommendation, EPA held a series of technical briefings to explain and answer questions about the Agency's methods for assessing OP cumulative hazard, as well as exposure through drinking water, food, and in residential settings. An EPA website was established to share updated information on pesticide cumulative risk assessment with the public ( http:/ / www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative). In FY 2002, the Agency issued a preliminary OP cumulative risk assessment on December 3, 2001, and issued a revised OP cumulative risk assessment on June 10, 2002, both for public comment. Through this assessment of the OP pesticides, EPA has evaluated 1,127 OP tolerances and found that most require no modification to meet the new FFDCA safety standard. The Agency's regulatory actions on individual OP pesticides during the past few years have substantially reduced the risks of these pesticides. The OP cumulative assessment strongly supports the Agency's confidence that the U. S. has one of the safest food supplies in the world. Most of the reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions that EPA is making for the OP pesticides at present will not be considered final until after the Agency completes its cumulative evaluation of the OPs. The results of individual OP assessments ( IRED and TRED documents) include significant risk mitigation measures, however, and any resulting tolerance revocations are counted as completed tolerance reassessments. In addition, some OP tolerances make at most a minimal or negligible contribution to the cumulative risk from OP pesticides; these tolerances also were counted as reassessed during FY 2002. Once EPA completes a cumulative evaluation of the OPs, the Agency will reconsider individual OP IREDs and TREDs, and may issue final REDs and tolerance reassessments for these pesticides. 4. Status of individual OP decisions. The status of each of the 49 known OP pesticides at the end of FY 2002 is reflected in this discussion. i. OP decisions completed. During FY 2002, through the public participation process, EPA completed risk assessments and made individual risk management decisions for 10 OP pesticides, bringing the number of OPs with individual decisions completed to 35 ( See List 1). List 1.   OP Pesticides with Individual Decisions Completed ( 35), End of FY 2002 20 IREDs Acephate Azinphos methyl Bensulide Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Dicrotophos Disulfoton Ethoprop Fenthion Methamidophos Methidathion Naled Oxydemeton methyl Phorate Phosmet Pirimiphos methyl Profenofos Propetamphos Terbufos Tribufos ( DEF) 10 TREDs Cadusafos Chlorethoxyfos Chlorpyrifos methyl Coumaphos Fenitrothion Mevinphos Phosalone Phostebupirim Tetrachlorvinphos Trichlorfon 5 REDs Ethion Ethyl parathion Fenamiphos Sulfotepp Temephos ii. OP decisions pending. Four other OP pesticides had completed most or all earlier phases of the public participation process and were awaiting individual decisions at the end of FY 2002. EPA plans to complete individual risk management decisions for these 4 pesticides during FY 2003 ( See List 2). List 2.   OP Pesticides with Individual Decisions Pending ( 4), End of FY 2002 Dichlorvos ( DDVP) Dimethoate Malathion Methyl parathion iii. Early OP cancellations. Ten OP pesticides were canceled prior to or early in the pilot public participation process ( See List 3). List 3.   OPs Canceled Prior to/ Early in the Pilot Public Participation Process ( 10) Chlorfenvinphos Chlorthiophos VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1 44776 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2003 / Notices Dialifor Dioxathion Fonofos Isazophos Isofenphos Monocrotophos Phosphamidon Sulprofos F. Applications for Registration Requiring Expedited Processing; Numbers Approved and Disapproved By law, EPA must expedite its processing of certain types of applications for pesticide product registration, i. e., applications for end use products that would be identical or substantially similar to a currently registered product; amendments to current product registrations that do not require review of scientific data; and products for public health pesticide uses. During FY 2002, EPA considered and approved the numbers of applications for registration requiring expedited processing ( also known as `` fast track'' applications) shown in Table 11.

TABLE 11.   FAST TRACK APPLICATIONS APPROVED IN FY 2002 Me too product registrations Fast track 368 Amendments/ Fast track 3,466 Total applications processed by expedited means 3,834 Regarding numbers of applications disapproved, instead the Agency generally notifies the registrant of any deficiencies in the application that need to be corrected or addressed before the application can be approved. Applications may have been withdrawn after discussions with the Agency, but none were formally `` disapproved'' during FY 2002. On a financial accounting basis, EPA devoted approximately 28.7 full time equivalents ( FTEs) in FY 2002 to reviewing and processing applications for fast track me too product registrations and label amendments. The Agency spent approximately $ 2.87 million in FY 2002 in direct costs ( i. e., time on task, not including administrative expenses, computer systems, management overhead, and other indirect costs) on expedited processing and reviews.

G. Future Schedule for Reregistrations During the past several years, EPA has been conducting reregistration in conjunction with tolerance reassessment under FFDCA. That law requires the Agency to reassess all existing tolerances over a 10   year period to ensure consistency with the new safety standard, and to consider pesticides that appear to pose the greatest risk first. In prioritizing pesticides for reregistration eligibility review and tolerance reassessment, EPA is continuing to consider their potential risks, as reflected in the Agency's tolerance reassessment schedule published in the Federal Register on August 4, 1997. EPA is giving highest priority to pesticides in Group 1, including the OP pesticides, and the carbamates, organochlorines, and B2 ( probable human) carcinogens. 1. RED, IRED, and TRED Candidate Pesticides for FY 2003. List 4 contains candidate pesticides for Reregistration Eligibility Decisions ( REDs), Interim REDs ( IREDs), and Reports on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions ( TREDs) in FY 2003. As in previous years, any pesticides for which decisions are not completed during FY 2003 will automatically become candidates for decisions in FY 2004. List 4.   FY 2003 RED, IRED, and TRED Candidate Pesticides REDs Chlorsulfuron Chromated copper arsenate ( CCA) Coal tar/ Creosote Dihalodialkylhydantoins Dinocap Diuron Ethoxyquin Imazalil MGK 326 Molinate Oxadiazon Pentachlorophenol Poly( hexamethylenebiguanide) ( PHMB) Propanil Thiophanate methyl ( completed 3   28   03) Zinc omadine Ziram IREDs Atrazine ( completed 1   31   03) Carbaryl ( due 6   30   03) Dichlorvos ( DDVP) Dimethoate Malathion Methyl parathion TREDs 4 CPA ( completed 4   3   03) Dacthal ( DCPA) Ethephon Fenridazon potassium Potassium bromide 2. RED, IRED, and TRED Candidate Pesticides for FY 2004. The pesticides that are in the pipeline for RED, IRED, and TRED decisions in FY 2004 are included in List 5. List 5.   FY 2004 RED, IRED, and TRED Candidate Pesticides REDs 2,4 D 2,4 DB Azadioxabicyclo octane Benfluralin Benzisothiazolin 3 one ( BIT) Bioban P 1487 Busan 77 Cacodylic acid/ DSMA/ MSMA Carboxin Cycloate Cypermethrin Fenvalerate Formaldehyde Mancozeb Maneb MCPA Metiram PCNB Sodium acifluorfen Sodium fluoride Thiram Trichloromelamine Triethylene glycol IREDs Aldicarb Atrazine revised IRED ( due 10   31   03) Carbofuran Formetanate HCl TREDs Amitraz Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether Fluazifop butyl Lactofen Oryzalin Sodium xylenesulfonate Sulfonated oleic acid, sodium salt Trifluralin H. Projected Year of Completion of Reregistrations EPA is now conducting reregistration in conjunction with tolerance reassessment, which FFDCA mandates be completed by August 2006. EPA plans to complete reregistration of pesticide active ingredients with tolerances and as many others as possible in meeting the statutory deadline for completing tolerance reassessment.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: July 11, 2003. Stephen L. Johnson, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[ FR Doc. 03   19353 Filed 7   29   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S VerDate jul< 14> 2003 16: 40 Jul 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYN1. SGM 30JYN1


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Supplemental Materials Document Title:  Paperwork Reduction Act Submission for 1625-0103 5 pages


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22660-22661]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER12-1338-003; ER12-1347-004]

Order Establishing Briefing Schedule: Duke Energy Corporation
Progress Energy, Inc.; Carolina Power & Light Company

Before Commissioners: Kevin J. McIntyre, Chairman; Cheryl A.
LaFleur, Neil Chatterjee, Robert F. Powelson, and Richard Glick.

    1. On July 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision,\1\ vacating in
part the Commission's acceptance of a Joint Dispatch Agreement (JDA)
between Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) and Carolina
Power & Light Company (CP&L) \2\ and remanding the matter to the
Commission for further consideration. The court found that certain
provisions in the JDA result in disparate rate treatment between
native-load and non-native-load wholesale customers and that the
Commission had not offered a valid reason for such a disparity.\3\
Also, the court found that the Commission failed to sufficiently
respond to several arguments raised by the City of Orangeburg, South
Carolina (Orangeburg) regarding certain regulatory conditions in the
JDA that Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L agreed to include pursuant to
proceedings before the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission
(North Carolina Commission). As discussed below, we establish a
briefing schedule to develop a better record on which to make a
determination on these two issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Orangeburg, South Carolina v. FERC, 862 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir.
2017) (Orangeburg v. FERC).
    \2\ Duke Energy Corp., 139 FERC 61,193 (2012) (JDA Order), order
denying reh'g, 151 FERC 61,242 (2015) (JDA Rehearing Order)
(together, JDA Orders).
    \3\ Orangeburg v. FERC, 862 F.3d at 1084 (citing Black Oak
Energy, LLC v.  FERC, 725 F.3d 230, 239 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Black
Oak)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Case History

    2. The history of this case is recounted at length in earlier
Commission orders.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ City of Orangeburg, South Carolina, 151 FERC 61,241, PP 3-10
(2015) (dismissing Orangeburg's petition for declaratory order); JDA
Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at PP 2-4; JDA Rehearing Order, 151 FERC
61,242 at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. As relevant here, in 2012, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) and
Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress) filed on behalf of Duke Energy
Carolinas and CP&L a JDA that provided for the joint dispatch of Duke
Energy Carolinas' and CP&L's respective generation facilities to serve
their loads.\5\ In accepting the JDA, the Commission found that the
allocation of the lowest energy cost under the JDA to the native-load
customers of Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L is not unduly
discriminatory.\6\ The Commission stated that this finding was
consistent with Order No. 2000, wherein it acknowledged that ``in areas
without retail choice, state commissions have the authority to `require
a utility to sell its lowest cost power to native load, as [they]
always [have].' '' \7\ Also, the Commission found that sections 3.2
(c)(ii)-(iv) of the JDA,\8\ which listed certain regulatory conditions
that the parties agreed to include in the JDA pursuant to proceedings
before North Carolina Commission, pertain to retail ratemaking and,
therefore, should be removed from the agreement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The JDA provides that the savings from the joint dispatch--
in fuel, purchased power, and related savings--will go directly to
retail and wholesale customers in North Carolina and South Carolina.
JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 6.
    \6\ Id. P 45.
    \7\ Id. P 45 (quoting from Regional Transmission Organizations,
Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,089 (1999) (Order No. 2000),
order on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,092 (2000),
aff'd sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County,
Washington v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).
    \8\ Section 3.2 (c)(ii)-(iv) of the JDA states:
    (ii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] may make or
incur a charge under this Agreement except in accordance with North
Carolina law and the rules, regulations and orders of the [North
Carolina Commission] promulgated thereunder;
    (iii) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] may seek to
reflect in its North Carolina retail rates (i) any costs incurred
under this Agreement exceeding the amount allowed by the [North
Carolina Commission] or (ii) any revenue level earned under the
Agreement other than the amount imputed by the [North Carolina
Commission]; and
    (iv) Neither [Duke Energy Carolinas] nor [CP&L] will assert in
any forum that the [North Carolina Commission's] authority to
assign, allocate, make pro forma adjustments to or disallow revenues
or costs for retail ratemaking and regulatory accounting and
reporting purposes is preempted and [Duke Energy Carolinas] and
[CP&L] will bear the full risk of any preemptive effects of federal
law with respect to this Agreement.
    JDA Order, 139 FERC 61,193 at P 23.
    \9\ Id. P 37. Also, the Commission noted that ``beyond requiring
the removal of these provisions from the JDA, we offer no view on
the North Carolina Commission's authority to impose or apply such
requirements in its proceeding.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Orangeburg requested rehearing, which the Commission denied in
the JDA Rehearing Order.\10\ In that order, the Commission affirmed its
finding that the JDA's pricing methodology (i.e., allocating the lowest
cost resources to serve the parties' native loads, while allocating the
higher cost resources to off-system sales (non-native load customers))
is just and reasonable.\11\ In addition, the Commission held that this
methodology does not unduly discriminate against Orangeburg, which is
neither a native-load customer of Duke Energy Carolinas nor CP&L.\12\
With that determination, the Commission declined to make a finding with
respect to Orangeburg's other arguments, such as the lawfulness of the
North Carolina Commission's regulatory conditions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ JDA Rehearing Order, 151 FERC 61,242 at P 1.
    \11\ Id. PP 12-13.
    \12\ Id. at P 13.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. D.C. Circuit Remand

    5. In Orangeburg v. FERC, the court stated that, in accepting the
JDA, the Commission approved certain provisions that established
disparate treatment between native-load and non-native-load wholesale
customers.\14\ The court stated that, ``according to Orangeburg, these
JDA provisions operate against the backdrop of [the North Carolina
Commission's] functional veto over which wholesale customers fit into
the former category. The court stated that, for the orders to survive
review, the Commission must have offer[ed] a valid reason for the
disparity between native load and non-native load wholesale customers
``under these circumstances.\15\ The court found that the Commission's
exclusive

reliance on Order No. 2000 for approving the JDA's disparate treatment
and responding to Orangeburg's overlapping Federal Power Act,
preemption, and Commerce Clause arguments was untenable for a number of
reasons.\16\ The court concluded that because the Commission [has not]
offer[ed] a valid reason for the disparity, the court could not affirm
[the Commission's] approval of the JDA provisions that establish
disparate treatment of native-load and non-native-load wholesale
customers, and incorporates [the North Carolina Commission's]
potentially unlawful regulatory regime.\17\ Accordingly, the court
vacated in part the JDA Orders and remanded the matter to the
Commission for further explanation regarding its approval of the
JDA.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Orangeburg v. FERC, 862 F.3d at 1074, 1081 (wholesale
customers are treated differently based on their native-load status.
. . . The JDA divides the world into two categories of customers:
Native load and non-native load. Only native-load customers--
including wholesale customers--enjoy access to the most reliable and
lowest cost power.'').
    \15\ Id. at 1084 (citing Black Oak Energy, 725 F.3d at 239)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
    \16\ Id. at 1085-1087.
    \17\ Id. at 1087.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    6. We establish a briefing schedule to allow the parties and other
interested persons to address the two issues noted below that the D.C.
Circuit raised in its decision. Further briefing on these issues will
help develop a better record for the Commission to respond to the
court's directive to reconsider these issues.
    7. We request briefing on the following issues, in particular:
    (a) Is the JDA's disparate treatment of native and non-native load
wholesale customers unduly discriminatory or preferential? In answering
this question, please address the following:
    (i) Explain why the JDA treats native and non-native load wholesale
customers disparately and whether the differences between these
customers justify the disparate treatment.
    (ii) Specify in detail the contractual provisions in current or
future wholesale contracts that would qualify a wholesale customer for
native load treatment under the JDA,\19\ as well as any contractual
provisions that would disqualify a wholesale customer for native load
treatment under the JDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The JDA provides that Native Load Customers include
wholesale customers that have native load served by Duke Energy
Carolinas or CP&L, for which Duke Energy Carolinas or CP&L has an
obligation pursuant to current or future wholesale contracts, for
the length of such contracts, to engage in planning and to sell and
deliver electric capacity and energy in a manner comparable to the
[utilities'] service to its Retail Native Load Customers. Duke
Energy Carolinas, FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule No. 341 at
Article I, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Explain why wholesale sales between Duke Energy Carolinas and
CP&L are excluded from the definition of non-native load sales and how
the JDA would treat such a sale between the utilities.
    (b) Do the North Carolina Commission's regulatory conditions \20\
impermissibly interfere with this Commission's jurisdiction over
wholesale ratemaking, in violation of the Federal Power Act \21\ or the
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution? \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Here, we are referring to the regulatory conditions that
were in section 3.2 (c)(ii)-(iv) of the JDA, which the JDA Order
required be removed.
    \21\ 16 U.S.C. 824e(a) (2012); see, e.g., Nantahala Power and
Light Company v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986); Mississippi Power &
Light Company v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 US 354 (1988).
    \22\ U.S. Const. art. 1, 8, cl. 3; see, e.g., New England Power
Company, 455 U.S. 331 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. We require Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L to submit--and others
may submit--initial briefs on or before 45 days from the date of this
order. Reply briefs must be submitted on or before 30 days following
the due date of the initial briefs. Any person who is not currently a
party to the proceeding and who wishes to submit a brief must file a
notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
The Commission Orders
    (A) Duke Energy Carolinas and CP&L are required to submit, and
other parties are hereby permitted to submit initial briefs on or
before forty-five (45) days of the date of this order, as discussed in
the body of this order.
    (B) Parties are hereby permitted to file reply briefs on or before
thirty (30) days of the date of filing of initial briefs.
    (C) All interested persons who wish to submit briefs but that are
not currently parties to Docket Nos. ER12-1338-003 or ER12-1347-004 may
submit notices of intervention or motions to intervene, as appropriate,
within 21 days of the date of this order. The briefing schedule
described in Ordering Paragraphs (A) and (B) will apply to such
persons.
    (D) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: May 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10402 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 134 (Monday, July 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42015-42016]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0041]

Southwest Research Institute: Request for Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces Southwest Research Institute's
(SWRI) application containing a request for renewal of recognition as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before July 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2006-0041,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2006-0041). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the
OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before July 28, 2020 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details its
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications by a NRTL for renewal of recognition
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts
renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, Appendix
A, paragraph II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months or no more than one
year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. The
submission includes a request for renewal and any additional
information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued
compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA
has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and
key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the
necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the
NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as
necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicit comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    SWRI initially received OSHA recognition as a NRTL on July 13, 1993
(58 FR 37752). SWRI's most recent renewal was granted on July 30, 2014,
for a five-year period ending on July 30, 2019. SWRI submitted a timely
request for renewal, dated September 14, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0041-0008),
and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this
renewal process. The current address of the SWRI facility recognized by
OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is:
    1. Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, Post Office
Drawer 28510, San Antonio, Texas 78238.

II. Notice of Preliminary Findings

    OSHA is providing notice that SWRI is applying for renewal of its
recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers SWRI's existing NRTL scope
of recognition. OSHA evaluated SWRI's application for renewal and
preliminarily determined that SWRI can continue to meet the
requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly,

OSHA is making a determination that it does not need to conduct an
additional on-site review of SWRI's facility based on its evaluations
of SWRI's application and all other available information. This
information includes OSHA's audits of SWRI's NRTL recognized site
during this recognition period, and the satisfactory resolution of non-
conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. This preliminary
finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the
request.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SWRI meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as a
NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the
written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA
will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a
longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not
adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly
available information in SWRI's application and other pertinent
documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments,
contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these
materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. OSHA-2006-0041.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary on
whether to grant SWRI's application for renewal. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and,
in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and
29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 7, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-15068 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57994-57995]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0644; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-011-AD;
Amendment 39-17193; AD 2012-18-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Cessna Aircraft Company Model 750 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of direct current (DC) generator overvoltage events. This AD
requires replacing the auxiliary power unit (APU) generator control
unit (GCU). We are issuing this AD to prevent DC generator overvoltage
events, which could result in smoke in the cockpit and loss of avionics
and electrical systems.

DATES: This AD is effective October 24, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone
316-517-6215; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.cessnasupport.com/newlogin.html. You may review
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Abraham, Aerospace Engineer,
Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 316-946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2012 (77 FR
37827). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the auxiliary power
unit (APU) generator control unit (GCU).

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 37827, June 25,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...........................  2 work-hours x $85 per            $2,400          $2,570        $149,060
                                         hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in
more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-18-16 The Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-17193; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0644; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-011-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 24, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Cessna Aircraft Company Model 750
airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers -
0222, -0225 through -0306 inclusive, and -0308.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of direct current (DC) generator
overvoltage events. We are issuing this AD to prevent DC generator
overvoltage events, which could result in smoke in the cockpit and
loss of avionics and electrical systems.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Replacement

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 6 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the auxiliary power
unit generator control unit (GCU) having part number (P/N) 9914752-2
with one having P/N 9914752-6, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December
5, 2011.

(h) Exceptions

    (1) Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service
Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5, 2011, state that operators
must return the GCU having P/N 9914752-2 to the manufacturer, this
AD does not require that action.
    (2) Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service
Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5, 2011, state that the
operator must record that the service bulletin has been completed,
this AD does not require that action.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christine Abraham,
Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE-
119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,
Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
316-946-4165; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Cessna Service Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone
316-517-6215; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.cessnasupport.com/newlogin.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 4, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-22337 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P