[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8476-8479]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0155; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-026-AD;
Amendment 39-16210; AD 2010-05-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (UK) has
informed EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] that significant
quantities of Halon 1211 gas, determined to be outside the required
specification, have been supplied to the aviation industry for use
in fire extinguishing equipment. * * *
* * * * *
    * * * This Halon 1211 has subsequently been used to fill certain
* * * portable fire extinguishers that are now likely to be
installed in or carried on board ATR aeroplanes.
    The contaminated nature of this gas, when used against a fire,
may provide reduced fire suppression, endangering the safety of the
aeroplane and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation
may lead to the release of toxic fumes, possibly causing injury to
aeroplane occupants.

* * * * *
This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 12, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 12,
2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0276R1, dated February 5, 2010 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (UK) has
informed EASA that significant quantities of Halon 1211 gas,
determined to be outside the required specification, have been
supplied to the aviation industry for use in fire extinguishing
equipment. Halon 1211 (BCF) is used in lavatory waste bin fire
extinguishers and portable fire extinguishers, usually fitted or
stowed in aircraft passenger cabins and flight decks.
    EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2009-39 on 23
October 2009 to make the aviation community aware of this safety
concern.
    The results of the ongoing investigation have now established
that LyonTech Engineering Ltd, a UK-based company, has supplied
further consignments of Halon 1211 (BCF) to L'Hotellier that do not
meet the required specification. This Halon 1211 has subsequently
been used to fill certain P/N 863521-01 portable fire extinguishers
that are now likely to be installed in or carried on board ATR
aeroplanes.
    The contaminated nature of this gas, when used against a fire,
may provide reduced fire suppression, endangering the safety of the
aeroplane and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation
may lead to the release of toxic fumes, possibly causing injury to
aeroplane occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the
identification and removal from service of certain batches of fire
extinguishers and replacement with serviceable units.

    This [EASA] AD has been revised to extend the compliance time.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    L'Hotellier has issued Service Bulletins 863521-26-001, Revision 1,
dated January 28, 2010; and Revision 2, dated February 4, 2010. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    We issued AD 2010-01-03, amendment 39-16159 (75 FR 221, January 5,
2010), on December 28, 2009. That AD applies to certain portable fire
extinguishers manufactured by Fire Fighting Enterprises Limited that
contain suspect Halon gas and that are installed on (or carried or
stowed on board) a broad range of airplanes and rotorcraft including
but not limited to those listed in Table 1 of that AD. Although ATR-GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional airplanes are not listed in Table 1
of the applicability of AD 2010-01-03, they are affected by that AD.
    This AD affects only ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional
airplanes that have certain portable fire extinguishers manufactured by
L'Hotellier that contain suspect Halon gas. We are able to be specific
in this AD because L'Hotellier fire extinguishers are installed on
Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes as part of their type design, and these
fire extinguishers do not hold an FAA-approval independent of their
installation. Therefore, this AD addresses the identified unsafe
condition for those airplanes that have L'Hotellier fire extinguishers
having the part number and serial numbers specified in this AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
contaminated Halon 1211 gas has been used to fill certain portable fire
extinguishers installed on Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes.
Contaminated Halon 1211 gas, when used against a fire, may have reduced
fire suppression capabilities, endangering the safety of the aircraft
and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation may release
toxic fumes that could possibly cause injury to aircraft occupants.
Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment
before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0155; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-026-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments

received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those
comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

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

    We determined that 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2010-05-01 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Amendment
39-16210. Docket No. FAA-2010-0155; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-
026-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and
Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes;
certificated in any category, all serial numbers, equipped with
L'Hotellier Halon 1211 (BCF) fire extinguishers, having part number
(P/N) 863521-01 and having any serial number identified in paragraph
1.A. of L'Hotellier Service Bulletin 863521-26-001, Revision 2,
dated February 4, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26: Fire
Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (UK) has
informed EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency] that significant
quantities of Halon 1211 gas, determined to be outside the required
specification, have been supplied to the aviation industry for use
in fire extinguishing equipment. Halon 1211 (BCF) is used in
lavatory waste bin fire extinguishers and portable fire
extinguishers, usually fitted or stowed in aircraft passenger cabins
and flight decks.
    EASA published Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2009-39 on 23
October 2009 to make the aviation community aware of this safety
concern.
    The results of the ongoing investigation have now established
that LyonTech Engineering Ltd, a UK-based company, has supplied
further consignments of Halon 1211 (BCF) to L'Hotellier that do not
meet the required specification. This Halon 1211 has subsequently
been used to fill certain P/N 863521-01 portable fire extinguishers
that are now likely to be installed in or carried on board ATR
aeroplanes.
    The contaminated nature of this gas, when used against a fire,
may provide reduced fire suppression, endangering the safety of the
aeroplane and its occupants. In addition, extinguisher activation
may lead to the release of toxic fumes, possibly causing injury to
aeroplane occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the
identification and removal from service of certain batches of fire
extinguishers and replacement with serviceable units.
    This [EASA] AD has been revised to extend the compliance time.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, replace
all L'Hotellier fire extinguishers having P/N 863521-01 and having
any serial number identified in paragraph 1.A. of L'Hotellier
Service Bulletin 863521-26-001, Revision 2, dated February 4, 2010,
with serviceable fire extinguishers.
    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any
L'Hotellier fire extinguisher having P/N 863521-01 and having any
serial number identified in paragraph 1.A. of L'Hotellier Service
Bulletin 863521-26-001, Revision 2, dated February 4, 2010, on any
airplane, unless it has been reconditioned with compliant Halon 1211
(BCF) and re-identified, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of L'Hotellier Service Bulletin 863521-26-001, Revision
1, dated January 28, 2010; or Revision 2, dated February 4, 2010.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows:

    (1) EASA AD 2009-0276R1, dated February 5, 2010, specifies a
time of 4 months to do the actions. This AD requires that the
actions be done within 90 days. We have determined that a 90-day
compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety.
    (2) EASA AD 2009-0276R1, dated February 5, 2010, includes fire
extinguishers having certain serial numbers in its applicability.
The EASA AD also includes a requirement to inspect to determine if
the fire extinguishers have those serial numbers and replacement if
necessary. Since the affected fire extinguishers are part of the
applicability, it is not necessary to also require inspecting for
them. Therefore, this AD includes fire extinguishers having certain
serial numbers in its applicability and does not include an
additional requirement to inspect for serial numbers; this AD
requires replacement of all affected fire extinguishers.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0276R1,
dated February 5, 2010; and L'Hotellier Service Bulletins 863521-26-
001, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2010, and Revision 2, dated
February 4, 2010; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use L'Hotellier Service Bulletin 863521-26-001,
Revision 1, dated January 28, 2010; or L'Hotellier Service Bulletin
863521-26-001, Revision 2, dated February 4, 2010; to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
L'Hotellier Repair Station, 4 rue Henri Poincar[eacute], 92167
ANTONY Cedex, France, Attn: Product Support; telephone +33 (0)1 55
59 09 65; fax +33 (0)1 46 66 66 71; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 11, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-3558 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 52485-52486]
[DOCID:fr13oc09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF09-2011-000]

United States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power
Administration; Order Approving Rates on an Interim Basis and Providing
Opportunity for Additional Comments

September 28, 2009.
    Summary: On July 31, 2009, and September 3, 2009, the Bonneville
Power Administration (Bonneville) filed a request for interim and final
approval of its wholesale power \1\ and transmission rates \2\ in
accordance with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) \3\ and Subpart B of Part 300 of
the Commission's regulations.\4\ Bonneville projects that the filed
rates will produce average annual power revenues of $2.925 billion, and
average annual revenues from transmission and ancillary services rates
of $866 million. Bonneville asserts that this level of annual revenues
is sufficient to recover its costs for the 2009-2011 rate approval
period, while providing cash flow to assure at least a 95 percent
probability of making all payments to the United States Treasury in
full and on time for each year of the rate period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposed wholesale power rates for which Bonneville
seeks approval for the period October 1, 2009 through September 30,
2011, include: Priority Firm Power Rate (PF-10); New Resource Firm
Power Rate (NR-10); Industrial Firm Power Rate (IP-10); Firm Power
Products and Services Rate (FPS-10); General Transfer Agreement
Service Rate (GTA-10); and Power General Rates Schedule Provisions
(GRSPs).
    \2\ The proposed transmission rates for which Bonneville seeks
approval for the period October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2011,
include: Formula Power Transmission Rate (FPT-10.1), Formula Power
Transmission Rate (FPT-10.3); Integration of Resources Rate (IR-10);
Network Integration Rate (NT-10); Point-to-Point Rate (PTP-10);
Southern Intertie Rate (IS-10); Montana Intertie Rate (IM-10); Use-
of-Facilities Transmission Rate (UFT-10); Advance Funding Rate (AF-
10); Ancillary Services and Control Area Services Rates (ACS-10);
Townsend-Garrison Transmission Rate (TGT-10); Eastern Intertie Rate
(IE-10); and Transmission General Rate Schedule Provisions (GRSPs).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 839e(i) (2006).
    \4\ 18 CFR Part 300 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of Bonneville's July 31, 2009, application was published in
the Federal Register, 74 FR 42,068 (2009), with protests, or motions to
intervene due on or before August 31, 2009. The Association of Public
Agency Customers, Alcoa Inc, Avista Corporation, Clatskanie People's
Utility District, Eugene Water and Electric Board, Iberdrola
Renewables, Inc., Idaho Power Company, Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, Northwest
Requirements Utilities,\5\ Northwest Wind Group,\6\ PacifiCorp,
Portland General Electric Company, Powerex Corp., Public Power Council,
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., and Tillamook People's Utility District filed
timely motions to intervene, raising no substantive issues. Notices of
interventions and unopposed timely filed motions to intervene are
granted pursuant to the operation of Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Any opposed or untimely
filed motion to

intervene is governed by the provisions of Rule 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ They comprise various municipalities, public utility
districts, cooperatives, etc., and they seek to intervene jointly
and also individually.
    \6\ The Northwest Wind Group is an unincorporated Bonneville
customer group comprising Renewable Northwest Project and wind
developers BP America, Inc., Columbia Energy Partners LLC, enXco
Development Corporation, Horizon Wind Energy and RES America
Developments Inc. Renewable Northwest Project is an advocacy
organization representing numerous environmental and consumer
groups, renewable resource developers, energy efficiency companies,
and manufacturers of renewable energy products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice of Bonneville's September 3, 2009, errata corrections was
published in the Federal Register, 74 FR 47,243 (2009), with protests,
or motions to intervene due on or before September 15, 2009. None were
filed.

Standard of Review

    Under the Northwest Power Act, the Commission's review of
Bonneville's regional power and transmission rates is limited to
determining whether Bonneville's proposed rates meet the three specific
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Power Act:\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) (2006). Bonneville also must comply
with the financial, accounting, and ratemaking requirements in
Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) They must be sufficient to assure repayment of the Federal
investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System over a reasonable
number of years after first meeting Bonneville's other costs;
    (B) They must be based upon Bonneville's total system costs; and
    (C) Insofar as transmission rates are concerned, they must
equitably allocate the costs of the Federal transmission system between
Federal and non-Federal power.
    Commission review of Bonneville's non-regional, non-firm rates also
is limited. Review is restricted to determining whether such rates meet
the requirements of section 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act,\8\ which
requires that they comply with the Bonneville Project Act, the Flood
Control Act of 1944, and the Federal Columbia River Transmission System
Act (Transmission System Act). Taken together, those statutes require
that Bonneville's non-regional, non-firm rates:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 16 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Recover the cost of generation and transmission of such
electric energy, including the amortization of investments in the power
projects within a reasonable period;
    (B) Encourage the most widespread use of Bonneville power; and
    (C) Provide the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with
sound business principles.
    Unlike the Commission's statutory authority under the Federal Power
Act, the Commission's authority under sections 7(a) and 7(k) of the
Northwest Power Act does not include the power to modify the rates. The
responsibility for developing rates in the first instance is vested
with Bonneville's Administrator. The rates are then submitted to the
Commission for approval or disapproval. In this regard, the
Commission's role can be viewed as an appellate one: to affirm or
remand the rates submitted to it for review.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ E.g., United States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power
Administration, 67 FERC ] 61,351 at 62,216-17 (1994); see also,
e.g., Aluminum Co. of America v. Bonneville Power Administration,
903 F.2d 585, 592-93 (9th Cir. 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, review at this interim stage is further limited. In view
of the volume and complexity of a Bonneville rate application, such as
the one now before the Commission in this filing, and the limited
period in advance of the requested effective date in which to review
the application,\10\ the Commission generally defers resolution of
issues on the merits of Bonneville's application until the order on
final confirmation. Thus, the proposed rates, if not patently
deficient, generally are approved on an interim basis and the parties
are afforded an additional opportunity in which to raise issues with
regard to Bonneville's filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 18 CFR 300.10(a)(3)(ii) (2009).
    \11\ See, e.g., United States Department of Energy--Bonneville
Power Administration, 64 FERC ] 61,375 at 63,606 (1993); United
States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power Administration, 40
FERC ] 61,351 at 62,059-60 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission declines at this time to grant final confirmation
and approval of Bonneville's proposed wholesale power and transmission
rates. The Commission's preliminary review nevertheless indicates that
Bonneville's wholesale power and transmission rates filing appears to
meet the statutory standards and the minimum threshold filing
requirements of Part 300 of the Commission's regulations.\12\ Moreover,
the Commission's preliminary review of Bonneville's submittal indicates
that it does not contain any patent deficiencies. The proposed rates
therefore will be approved on an interim basis pending our full review
for final approval. We note, as well, that no one will be harmed by
this decision because interim approval allows Bonneville's rates to go
into effect subject to refund with interest; the Commission may order
refunds with interest if the Commission later determines in its final
decision not to approve the rates.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., United States Department of Energy--Bonneville
Power Administration, 105 FERC ] 61,006 at P13-14 (2003); United
States Department of Energy--Bonneville Power Administration, 96
FERC ] 61,360 at 62,358 (2001).
    \13\ 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we will provide an additional period of time for
parties to file comments and reply comments on issues related to final
confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. This will
ensure that the record in this proceeding is complete and fully
developed.

The Director

    Interim approval of Bonneville's proposed wholesale power and
transmission rates is hereby granted, to become effective on October 1,
2009, through September 30, 2011, subject to refund with interest as
set forth in section 300.20(c) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
300.20(c) (2009), pending final action and either their approval or
disapproval.
    Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, parties who wish
to do so may file additional comments regarding final confirmation and
approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. Parties who wish to do so may
file reply comments within twenty (20) days thereafter.
    The Secretary shall promptly publish this order in the Federal
Register.

Authorities

    This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated to the
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--Central, under 18
CFR 375.307 of the Commission's Regulations. This order constitutes
final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be
filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order pursuant to
18 CFR 385.713.

Penny S. Murrell,
Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--Central.
[FR Doc. E9-24545 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40874-40877]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13219]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97734; File No. SR-ICC-2023-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Recovery Plan and
the ICC Wind-Down Plan

June 15, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ notice is hereby given that on June
05, 2023, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICC proposes revising the ICC Recovery Plan and the ICC Wind-Down
Plan, which serve as plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of
ICC necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from
general business risk, or any other losses, consistent with Rule 17ad-
22(e)(3)(ii).\3\ ICC proposes to make such changes effective following
Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change is described in detail as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICC proposes revising the ICC Recovery Plan and the ICC Wind-Down
Plan, which serve as plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of
ICC

necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from
general business risk, or any other losses, consistent with Rule 17ad-
22(e)(3)(ii).\4\ ICC proposes to make such changes effective following
Commission approval of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change is described in detail as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICC Recovery Plan
    Consistent with the regulations applicable to ICC, the ICC Recovery
Plan is designed to establish ICC's actions to maintain its viability
as a going concern to address any uncovered credit loss, liquidity
shortfall, capital inadequacy, or business, operational or other
structural weakness that threatens ICC's viability. ICC proposes
general updates and edits to promote clarity and to ensure that the
information provided is current. The proposed amendments reflect and
relate to changes that impacted ICC in the past year, including changes
to the coverage amount under the ICC clearing participant (``CP'')
default insurance policy (``CP Default Insurance Policy''),\5\ and the
addition of ICC specific procedures for financial resource
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The CP Default Insurance Policy covers specified losses
resulting from a CP default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposes general updates to ensure that the information in the
ICC Recovery Plan is current. In Section I and throughout the document,
the proposed changes specify that the information provided is current
as of December 31, 2022, unless otherwise stated. Namely, the proposed
changes ensure that relevant information regarding ICC for recovery
planning, such as information about ICC's ownership and operation, is
current with respect to:
     activities of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (``ICE'' or
collectively, the ``ICE Group'' of affiliated companies with ICE as the
ultimate parent) in Section II.A;
     a new ICC membership category--Associate Clearing
Participant in Section IV.B;
     correction to the Management/Governance chart in Section
IV.C; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The BCP and DR Oversight Committee is a sub-committee of the
ICC Compliance Committee. The Management/Governance chart
incorrectly indicated that the BCP and DR Oversight Committee is a
sub-committee of the ICC Audit Committee--and such error has been
corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     description of an ICC Independent Director in Section
IV.C;
     data regarding ICC revenues, volumes, and expenses in
Section IV.D;
     ICC personnel and facilities in Section VI.A;
     description of ICC in-house systems in Section VI.A; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In connection with a future datacenter migration effort,
ICC's in-house systems were renamed, recategorized and consolidated
in an ICE Group enterprise-wide coordination of all ICE business
applications. As a result of these comprehensive changes in naming
conventions, the December 31, 2021 chart of ICC's in-house systems
in Section VI.A. has been removed and replaced with a new chart of
ICC's current in-house systems that reflect the new names,
categories and updated descriptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ICC Counterparty Chart in Section VI.B; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Counterparty Chart has been updated due to the
termination of three reverse repurchase agreements and the addition
of one new reverse repurchase agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     contacts under the ICC Default Insurance Policy in Section
VIII.B;
     coverage amount under the Professional Liability/Cyber
(E&O) Insurance Policy in Section VIII.B;
     financial resources for recovery in Section X; and
     ICC and ICE Group financial information in Section VIII
and XI.
    Additionally, ICC proposes updates regarding the CP Default
Insurance Policy maintained at the ICE Group level, which may be used
as a recovery tool in a CP default scenario. In Section VIII.B, the ICC
CP Default Insurance Policy coverage amount has increased to $75
million instead of the prior $50 million, to the extent that the
defaulting CP's obligations to ICC exceed the sum of: (1) the
defaulting CP's available margin and Guaranty Fund contributions; and
(2) the ICC ``skin in the game'' contributions to default resources of
$50 million.
    Also, in Section VIII.3.iii., ICC proposes to add a footnote
reference to ICC's Risk Appetite Statements and Metrics to describe the
thresholds with respect to regulatory capital requirements that would
trigger alerts for ICC nearing a capital requirement breach (i.e., the
current alert is triggered if ICC maintains 110% or less of its
required regulatory capital). Such reference to ICC's Risk Appetite
Statements and Metrics is intended to provide further details on how
decreases in ICC's regulatory capital will trigger escalation within
ICC which may lead to potential remedial actions, including whether ICC
should initiate its plan to raise additional equity.
    In Section X, ICC proposes including additional details regarding
the calculation of ICC's financial resources available for recovery to
reflect new ICC specific Financial Resource Calculation Procedures.
Specifically, ICC completes a voluntary annual calculation of
regulatory requirements under European Market Infrastructure Regulation
(``EMIR'') guidelines.\9\ ICC's calculation approximates the EMIR
requirements and is calculated by ICE Treasury on an annual basis upon
the finalization of ICC's statutory audit and financial statements and
a discussion of future expectations with the ICC Treasury Director. The
EMIR Estimate includes four elements relating to: winding down/
restructuring; operational and legal risks; credit and counterparty
risk/market risk; and business risks. Such procedures include
additional details regarding the calculation of regulatory capital
requirements under EMIR guidelines, which ICC complies with on a
voluntary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EU clearing house regulatory capital requirements as
defined by EMIR under EU Regulation 153/2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposes additional minor edits for clarity and consistency in
the ICC Recovery Plan. In the counterparty contractual agreements chart
in Section VI, ICC removed the reference to a service no longer
received from a specific external service provider (i.e., receipt of
market data to value FX positions and collateral). In Section XIII,
Appendix G, the applicable contact information on the CP Default
Insurance Policy has been updated. Specifically, the carrier and the
insurance contract policy number has been updated. In Section XIV, the
proposed changes update the index of exhibits with the current versions
of policies and procedures, consistent with updated footnote
references. Finally, ICC proposes minor typographical fixes in the ICC
Recovery Plan as well as conforming changes in in the ICC Wind-Down
Plan, including updates to entity names, and grammatical and formatting
changes.
ICC Wind-Down Plan
    The ICC Wind-Down Plan is designed to establish how ICC could be
wound-down in an orderly manner. ICC proposes corresponding changes to
the ICC Wind-Down Plan. ICC proposes general updates and edits to
promote clarity and to ensure that the information provided is current.
The proposed amendments reflect and relate to changes that have
impacted ICC in the past year, including the addition of ICC specific
procedures for financial resource calculations.
    ICC proposes general updates to ensure that the information in the
ICC Wind-Down Plan is current. In Section I and throughout the
document, the proposed changes specify that the information provided is
current as of December 31, 2022, unless otherwise stated. The proposed
revisions ensure

that relevant information regarding ICC for wind-down planning, such as
information about ICC's ownership and operation, is current with
respect to:
     activities of ICE in Section II.A;
     correction to the Management/Governance chart in Section
IV.B; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The BCP and DR Oversight Committee is a sub-committee of
the ICC Compliance Committee. The Management/Governance chart
incorrectly indicated that the BCP and DR Oversight Committee is a
sub-committee of the ICC Audit Committee--and such error has been
corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     description of an ICC Independent Director in Section
IV.B;
     ICC revenues in Section VII.A;
     ICC personnel and facilities in Section VII.C;
     description of ICC in-house systems in Section VII.C; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In connection with a future datacenter migration effort,
ICC's in-house systems were renamed, recategorized and consolidated
in an ICE Group enterprise-wide coordination of all ICE business
applications. As a result of these comprehensive changes in naming
conventions, the December 31, 2021 chart of ICC's in-house systems
in Section VII.C. has been removed and replaced with a new chart of
ICC's current in-house systems that reflect the new names,
categories and updated descriptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ICC Counterparty Chart VII.D; \12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Counterparty Chart has been updated due to the
termination of three reverse repurchase agreements and the addition
of one new reverse repurchase agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     financial resources to support wind-down in Section IX.
    ICC also proposes including additional details regarding the
calculation of ICC's financial resources available for wind-down to
reflect the new ICC specific Financial Resource Calculation Procedures.
Such procedures include additional details regarding the calculation of
regulatory capital requirements under EMIR guidelines, which ICC
complies with on a voluntary basis.
    ICC proposes additional updates and edits to promote clarity and
consistency in the ICC Wind-Down Plan. In the counterparty contractual
agreements chart in Section VIII, ICC removed the reference to a
service no longer received from a specific external service provider
(i.e., receipt of market data to value FX positions and collateral). In
Section XII, the proposed changes update the index of exhibits with the
current versions of policies and procedures, consistent with updated
footnote references.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \13\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the applicable standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\14\ In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \15\
requires that the rule change be consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC
or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC believes the proposed changes would enhance its ability to
effectuate a successful recovery as well as to execute an orderly wind-
down by providing updates and additional clarity with respect to ICC's
recovery and wind-down processes and procedures. As discussed herein,
the proposed revisions ensure that relevant information regarding ICC
for recovery and wind-down planning is current, including updated
information regarding personnel and facilities, finances and
operations, and financial resources for recovery and wind-down. To
support and enhance the implementation of the Plans, additional
language clarifications or edits are included so that the Plans remain
up-to-date, transparent, and focused on clearly articulating the
policies and procedures used to support ICC's recovery and wind-down
efforts.
    Such revisions include additional details regarding required
disclosures, references to relevant policies, updated information
regarding recovery tools, and amended language that is intended to be
more precise. The Plans would thus promote ICC's ability to continue
providing clearing services with as little disruption as possible, and
should continuation not be feasible, promote ICC's ability to
discontinue clearing services in an orderly manner with minimum
negative impact to the marketplace and stakeholders. Accordingly, in
ICC's view, the proposed rule change is consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding
of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which
it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public
interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) \17\ requires ICC to establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general
business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by ICC, which includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-
down of ICC necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses
from general business risk, or any other losses. The ICC Recovery Plan
continues to establish ICC's actions to maintain its viability as a
going concern to address any uncovered credit loss, liquidity
shortfall, capital inadequacy, or business, operational or other
structural weakness that threatens ICC's viability. The ICC Wind-Down
Plan continues to establish how ICC could be wound-down in an orderly
manner should its recovery efforts fail. As described above, the
proposed changes include updates and edits to promote clarity and to
ensure that the information in the Plans is current, such as updated
information regarding financial resources for recovery and wind-down.
In ICC's view, such changes would ensure that the Plans remain useful
and effective in a recovery and wind-down scenario. The proposed rule
change would thus promote ICC's ability to carry out a successful
recovery or orderly wind-down, consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) \19\ requires ICC to establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to identify monitor, and manage ICC's general business risk
and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover
potential general business losses so that ICC can continue operations
and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including
by (i) determining the amount of liquid net assets funded by equity
based upon its general business risk profile and the length of time
required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down, as appropriate, of
its critical operations and services if such action is taken; (ii)
holding liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the greater of
either (x) six months of ICC's current operating expenses, or (y) the
amount determined by the Board to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or
orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of ICC, as
contemplated by the plans established under Rule 17ad-22(e)(3)(ii)
\20\; and (iii) maintain a viable plan, approved by the Board and
updated at least annually, for raising additional equity should its
equity fall

close to or below the amount required under Rule 17ad-
22(e)(15)(ii).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plans continue to analyze ICC's particular circumstances and
risks to ensure that ICC maintains financial resources necessary to
implement both Plans and that ICC remains in compliance with all
regulatory capital requirements. The Plans include updated information
on the financial resources maintained by ICC for recovery and to
support wind-down in compliance with relevant regulations and include
procedures to follow in case of any shortfall. Such changes continue to
ensure that the Plans remain accurate and useful, and that ICC holds
sufficient liquid net assets to achieve recovery or orderly wind-down.
As such, ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to
the Plans will apply uniformly across all market participants. The
changes are being proposed to promote clarity and ensure that the
information provided is current in the Plans. ICC does not believe the
amendments would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market
participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the
proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is
inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-ICC-2023-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2023-007. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and
on ICE Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2023-007 and should
be submitted on or before July 13, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13219 Filed 6-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


NOX FUEL FACTOR INSERT   NOVEMBER 15TH RE ORGANIZATION B. Fuel Adjustment Factors Used to Set State NOx Budgets Several petitioners argue the Agency did not provide adequate notice regarding the use of specific fuel adjustment factors to establish NOx budgets for States in the CAIR region. As explained below, EPA believes that it provided adequate notice both that the fuel adjustment factors might be used and of the calculation procedures that it would use to determine the specific factors.

Nevertheless, given the significant public interest in this issue, EPA has decided to grant reconsideration of, and to take comment on, EPA's use of fuel adjustment factors ( i. e., 1.0 for coal, 0.4 for gas, and 0.6 for fuel oil) in setting State NOx budgets. Today's action also presents additional analysis that EPA conducted to further explain the impact of these factors on State annual NOx budgets.

This analysis demonstrates that the factors selected are reasonable and decrease the disparity between most States'

actual electric generation unit ( EGU) emissions and their State NOx budgets. For that reason, EPA is not proposing any changes to the final CAIR at this time.

The CAIR establishes regional emission budgets for SO2, annual NOx, and seasonal NOx emissions. These regional budgets are then further divided into State budgets, with a share of each total regional budget allocated to each State in the corresponding CAIR region.

States choosing to participate in the trading programs will be able to allocate, to sources in their State, the number of allowances in their budgets. Petitioners challenge the methodology EPA used to establish these State budgets for annual and seasonal NOx.

Background For States choosing to participate in the trading program, these budgets determine the number of allowances that could be allocated to sources in that State. In a cap and trade system, however, the methodology used to allocate allowances in any given year would not affect where control technologies are installed. 1 Rather, the determinant would be the cost of adding controls compared to the cost of buying, or the profit from selling, allowances. Controls are expected to be installed where it is relatively less expensive, without regard to which units received the initial allocation of allowances. Further, the total cost 1 A permanent allocation approach, such as the CAIR allocation methodology in the model trading rules, should not affect where controls are installed. This is true regardless of the the type of approach used to permanently allocate allowances ( e. g., heat input, adjusted heat input, or output). The use of an updating allocation system, on the other hand, could impact future generation behavior. to industry of controlling emissions and the total amount of reductions achieved would not be affected by the allocation methodology in a given year ( for a permanent system). The allocation method, however, could have financial impacts on individual units and companies. A unit that receives more allocations than it has emissions would get a benefit at the expense of a unit that does not receive enough allocations to cover its emissions. While States choosing to participate in the cap and trade program can determine how to allocate allowances among their units,

companies in States whose budgets exceed projected EGU emissions would likely receive a financial benefit while companies in States whose budgets are lower than their EGU emissions would likely incur additional costs. EPA believes that a system that minimizes the disparity between the number of allowances in a State budget and total projected State EGU emissions is the most equitable, and that it is in the public interest to promote equity among the States.

Notice of Fuel Factor Use in CAIR Promulgation In the CAIR notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPR), EPA proposed to use the simple heat input method. ( 69 FR 4566)

This approach used the un adjusted heat input to set budgets based on heat input data from the years 1999 through 2002. EPA proposed to give each State a pro rata share of the regional NOx budget based on the ratio of its average annual heat input to the regional total average annual heat input In the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( SNPR), EPA proposed to supplement and update the data used to calculate the State annual NOx budgets ( 69 FR 32684).

EPA also described an alternative method that could be used to calculate the budgets  the adjusted heat input ( fuel factor) method. This approach, EPA explained, would " . .

. reflect the inherently higher emissions rate of coalfired plants, and consequently the greater burden on coal plants to control emissions." ( See 69 FR 32689.) The SNPR continued by explaining that the use of fuel factors is more equitable to these " coal fired plants that have already installed pollution controls" ( 69 FR 32689). In the SNPR, EPA also described the method that it would use to derive specific fuel factors if this adjusted heat input method was selected. EPA explained, " States' shares would be determined by the amount of the State heat input, as adjusted, in proportion to the total regional heat input.

The factors could be based on average historic emissions rates ( in lbs/ mmBtu) by fuel type ( coal, gas, and oil) for the years 1999 2002" ( 69 FR 32689). The SNPR did not identify the specific numeric factors that would be used.

EPA received and responded to numerous comments addressing this alternative fuel factor approach. ( See " Corrected Response to Significant Public Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule," pp. 520 576.)

EPA established State NOx budgets for the final CAIR using the adjusted heat input method. The specific fuel factors used to adjust heat input data were 1.0 for coal,

0.4 for gas and 0.6 for oil. These factors are based on the average historic NOx emissions rate for each fuel.

They reflect for each fuel, the 1999 2002 average emissions by State summed for the CAIR region, divided by average heat input by fuel by State, summed for the CAIR region ( 70 FR 25230 31).

EPA Analyses of Potential Impacts EPA conducted two analyses to evaluate the potential the impact of using the adjusted heat input method versus the simple heat input method on State annual NOx budgets:

one on a regionwide scale and the second on a State by

State level.

The regionwide analysis of the potential impacts compared regionwide budgets using both approaches ( i. e.,

simple heat input and fuel factor) to the regionwide projected emissions of units fired with that fuel. 2 Regional budgets and emissions, by fuel type, are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Regionwide Comparison of CAIR Allowance Distributions and Emissions by Fuel Type ( thousand tons)

Projected 2009* Emissions and Allocation Projected 2015 Emissions and Allocation Coal Natural Gas and Oil** Total Coal Natural Gas and Oil Total Base Case 2,634.7 97.2 2,731.9 2,650.3 96.1 2,746.4 CAIR 1,404.3 99.2 1,503.5 1,150.7 89.4 1,254.1 Simple Heat Input 1,197.4 307.5 1,504.9 997.8 256.3 1,254.1 Fuel Factor Adjusted 1,348.6 156.3 1,504.9 1,123.8 130.2 1,254.1 * Numeric value is based on 2010 projections. ** Numeric value includes wood and refuse in three States.

Assuming allowances are generally passed through to generation units in the same way that they are apportioned to the States, Table 1 illustrates that under either approach natural gas fired and other non coal fired generation receives more allowances than their projected emissions in both 2009 and 2015. However, using the fuel factor approach, the disparity between the number of allowances provided and the emissions are less than under the simple heat input method. Table 1 also demonstrates that the majority of emission reductions are made by coal

2 It should be noted that simple heat input or adjusted heat input are used to set State budgets and do not imply that States would allocate allowances to units in that manner. In the proposal, EPA gives States flexibility in the distribution of allowances. fired sources, which are provided additional allowances under the fuel factor approach. Therefore, the fuel factor approach generally provides allowances to the coal fired units that are making the investments in emission control measures and technologies. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach.

EPA conducted a second analysis that examined the potential impacts of the two approaches for developing Statewide budgets ( i. e., simple heat input and fuel factor)

on a State by State basis. This analysis, summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below, shows that States receiving fewer allowances using a fuel factor approach, generally still receive Statewide budgets that are greater than their projected emissions in 2009 and 2015. This results from a substantial portion of their generation portfolio being gas fired sources with generally low NOx emission levels.

Table 2: Comparison of Projected NOx Emissions and State Budgets for CAIR States Not Dominated by Coal Generation ( thousand tons)

Projected 2009* Emissions and Allocation Projected 2015 Emissions and Allocation State Coal Other Fossil Total Coal Other Fossil Total DC Base Case 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CAIR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Simple Heat Input 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 Fuel Factor Adjusted 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 LA Base Case 44.9 4.6 49.5 44.9 5.4 50.3 CAIR 30.3 4.2 34.6 27.1 5.3 32.3 Simple Heat Input 19.0 22.7 41.7 15.8 25.9 41.7 Fuel Factor Adjusted 21.4 14.1 35.5 17.8 11.8 29.6 NY Base Case 38.5 6.7 45.1 38.1 5.9 44.0 CAIR 28.6 7.5 36.1 14.8 6.4 21.1 Simple Heat Input 18.6 42.1 60.7 15.5 35.1 50.6 Fuel Factor Adjusted 20.9 24.7 45.6 17.4 20.6 38.0 TX Base Case 140.8 45.0 185.8 140.9 38.6 179.4 CAIR 121.7 44.1 165.8 122.1 35.4 157.5 Simple Heat Input 113.5 117.5 231.0 94.6 97.9 192.5 Fuel Factor Adjusted 127.8 53.2 181.0 106.5 44.4 150.8 MS Base Case 35.8 1.0 36.8 35.8 1.7 37.5 CAIR 29.6 0.9 30.6 5.9 1.9 7.7 Simple Heat Input 11.1 10.0 21.2 9.3 8.4 17.6 Fuel Factor Adjusted 12.5 5.3 17.8 10.4 4.4 14.8 FL Base Case 132.5 18.6 151.1 132.5 18.5 151.0 CAIR 51.1 17.4 68.6 43.6 17.7 61.4 Simple Heat Input 58.0 58.0 116.0 48.4 48.3 96.7 Fuel Factor Adjusted 65.4 34.1 99.4 54.5 28.4 82.9 * Numeric value is based on 2010 projections.

Table 2 lists those States in the CAIR region that have significant amounts ( i. e., 40 percent or greater) of generation source that combust fossil fuels other than coal. As illustrated by Table 2, DC, FL, LA, MS, NY, and TX, while receiving fewer allowances under a fuel factor approach, are provided with reasonable Statewide budgets that are comparable to their projected emissions in 2009 and 2015. Table 3: Comparison of Projected NOx Emissions and State Budgets for CAIR States ( thousand tons)

Projected 2009* Emissions and Allowance Allocation Projected 2015 Emissions and Allowance Allocation State Base Case CAIR Simple Heat Input Fuel Factor Adjusted Percent Change Base Case CAIR Simple Heat Input Fuel Factor Adjusted Percent Change DC 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1  32.3% 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1  32.6% LA 49.5 34.6 50.0 35.5  29.0% 50.3 32.3 41.7 29.6  29.0% NY 45.1 36.1 60.7 45.6  24.9% 44.0 21.1 50.6 38.0  24.9% TX 185.8 165.8 231.0 181.0  21.6% 179.4 157.5 192.5 150.8  21.6% MS 36.8 30.6 21.2 17.8  15.8% 37.5 7.7 17.6 14.8  15.8% FL 151.1 68.6 116.0 99.4  14.3% 151.0 61.4 96.7 82.9  14.3% MI 117.0 88.0 63.6 65.3 2.6% 120.2 89.9 53.0 54.4 2.6% MD 56.7 13.4 26.5 27.7 4.4% 57.4 12.4 22.1 23.1 4.4% VA 67.9 43.0 34.5 36.1 4.5% 59.8 39.0 28.8 30.1 4.5% AL 132.0 65.5 64.2 69.0 7.6% 133.8 49.1 53.5 57.5 7.6% GA 143.1 105.5 61.1 66.3 8.5% 140.8 66.7 50.9 55.3 8.5% IL 146.2 65.7 70.1 76.2 8.7% 159.5 64.8 58.4 63.5 8.7% WI 71.1 46.9 37.3 40.8 9.4% 69.3 34.2 31.0 34.0 9.4% PA 198.3 86.4 90.4 99.0 9.6% 192.9 71.7 75.3 82.5 9.6% SC 48.8 37.6 29.8 32.7 9.7% 50.4 36.4 24.8 27.2 9.7% MO 115.9 64.2 54.3 59.9 10.3% 117.9 65.6 45.2 49.9 10.3% MN 71.9 36.4 28.4 31.4 10.5% 74.3 37.5 23.7 26.2 10.5% NC 59.8 59.2 56.0 62.2 11.1% 61.2 48.9 46.7 51.8 11.1% IN 233.8 121.5 97.8 108.9 11.4% 233.3 79.4 81.5 90.8 11.4% OH 263.8 91.1 97.1 108.7 12.0% 274.4 90.0 80.9 90.6 12.0% TN 106.4 37.3 45.5 51.0 12.0% 105.6 27.2 37.9 42.5 12.0% KY 175.8 99.3 74.2 83.2 12.1% 176.2 74.2 61.8 69.3 12.1% IA 75.9 45.1 29.1 32.7 12.3% 81.3 47.4 24.3 27.2 12.3% WV 179.1 61.7 65.9 74.2 12.6% 175.8 39.5 54.9 61.9 12.6%

Total 2,731.9 1,503.5 1,504.9 1,504.9 0.0% 2,746.4 1,254.1 1,254.1 1,254.1 0.0% * Numeric value is based on 2010 projections.

Table 3 summarizes, for the CAIR region, the State by

State projected emissions in 2009 and 2015 ( for both the Basecase and CAIR program scenarios), Statewide budgets for each approach, and the percent change in each State's budget from using the fuel factor approach. Table 3 illustrates that most CAIR States will not see a significant impact on their Statewide annual NOx Budgets. 3 ( See the " CAIR Statewide NOx Budget Calculations Technical Support Document, EPA 2005, for additional discussion of the analysis.) As discussed above, the States which do see a change in their Statewide budgets ( i. e., DC, FL, LA, MS,

NY, and TX,) are States that receive a smaller, but sufficient, amount of allowances because they a have a significant amount of generation that combusts fossil fuels other than coal. With little or no significant impact resulting from the use of the fuel factor approach, this State by State analysis demonstrates that the use of the fuel factor approach is reasonable.

Analysis of Potential Delaware and New Jersey Impacts The analyses described above were conducted for the States in the CAIR PM2.5 region only. EPA has proposed to add Delaware and New Jersey to the CAIR region for PM2.5 (" Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the Clean Air Interstate Rule", EPA, May 10, 2005), but has not yet taken final action on this proposal. EPA proposed a separate 2

3 Changes of less than 10 percent were considered insignificant because of factors that could impact the analysis results ( e. g., States may choose to allocate allowances to sources using methods that do not exactly mirror the fuel factor State budget, and uncertainty in the model projections.) State " regional" budget for Delaware and New Jersey of just over 14,000 tons. EPA's analysis, presented in Table 4,

shows that apportioning this budget between the two States based on a fuel factor method instead of a simple heat input method, is reasonable. (" Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the Clean Air Interstate Rule", EPA, May 10,

2005)

Table 4: Comparison of Projected NOx Emissions and State Budgets for New Jersey and Delaware ( thousand tons)

Projected 2009* Emissions and Allowance Allocation Projected 2015 Emissions and Allowance Allocation State Base Case CAIR Simple Heat Input Fuel Factor Adjusted Percent Change Base Case CAIR Simple Heat Input Fuel Factor Adjusted Percent Change NJ 16.8 8.5 13.4 12.7  5.6% 17.9 12.8 11.2 10.6  5.6% DE 9.4 12.0 3.4 4.2 22.1% 10.7 9.5 2.8 3.5 22.2% * Numeric value is based on 2010 projections.

Other Considerations EPA notes that the analyses above were conducted for State annual NOx budgets established in the CAIR. CAIR also establishes seasonal NOx budgets using the fuel factor approach. EPA did not conduct a similar analysis of the seasonal NOx budgets. EPA modeling indicates that the ozone season program is likely to function as a backstop to the annual NOx program, and that the annual NOx program is likely to impose the binding constraint on NOx emissions. Finally, to ensure that our estimates appropriately reflect the distribution of emissions in the case of higher electricity demand and increased gas and oil prices, EPA conducted a sensitivity run using EIA's forecast of higher electricity demand and gas and oil prices. This run produced very similar emissions results to the original NOx analysis, showing that EPA's original analysis is robust enough to support the fuel adjusted heat input approach finalized in CAIR. ( See the " CAIR Statewide NOx Budget Calculations Technical Support Document, EPA 2005, for additional discussion of the analysis.)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12408-12411]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04865]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0656; FRL-9906-13]

Metconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the current tolerances for residues of
metconazole in or on corn, field, stover and corn, pop, stover. BASF
Corporation, requested these tolerance amendments under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 5, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 5, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0656, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0656 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 5, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0656, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL-
9901-96), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3F8157) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, RTP, NC
27709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.617 be amended by
increasing tolerances for residues of the fungicide metconazole, in or
on corn, field, stover from 4.5 parts per million (ppm) to 30.0 ppm and
corn, pop, stover from 4.5 ppm to 30.0 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
    There were no comments received in response to the notice of
filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for metconazole including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with metconazole follows.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
effects caused by metconazole can be found in www.regulations.gov,
under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0656-0004, entitled
``Metconazole. Additional Residue Data on Corn Stover. Summary of
Residue Data and within the memo entitled ``Metconazole. Summary of
Risk Issues Associated with Increase in Tolerance for Corn Stover'',
under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0656-0005.
    To demonstrate the safety of the increases in these corn stover
tolerances, EPA is relying on its most recent tolerance action on
metconazole published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2011 (76 FR
50898) (FRL-8882-7). See also 74 FR 21260, FRL-8408-6 (May 7, 2009)
(initially establishing the corn stover tolerances). In the 2011
tolerance action, EPA concluded that aggregate exposure to metconazole
is safe assuming all treated commodities, including both human and
animal foods, had metconazole residues at the tolerance level. Because

EPA assessed metconazole exposure assuming tolerance level residues--a
level that is set above the level of residues expected from legal use
of a pesticide--unless tolerance levels on human foods increase, the
2011 action remains an up-to-date assessment of metconazole risk.
    Corn stover is an animal feed. Thus, humans are only exposed to
metconazole on animal feed as a result of consuming meat, milk, or egg
products from livestock that have eaten commodities containing
metconazole residues. After examining the impact of the proposed
increase on corn stover tolerances on residue levels in meat, milk, and
eggs, EPA has concluded that any residue increases in meat, milk, and
eggs will be minor (principally due to the minor role that corn stover
plays in the livestock diet), and thus meat, milk, and egg tolerances
will not need to be increased. In other words, EPA determined that the
proposed increase in tolerance levels in corn stover will not result in
metconazole residues exceeding the existing meat, milk, and egg
tolerances.
    Accordingly, because EPA in the 2011 metconazole action assumed
tolerance level residues in meat, milk, and eggs in assessing
metconazole risk, and the proposed increase in the corn stover
tolerances will not necessitate an increase in those tolerances, the
2011 determination of safety applies with equal force to this action.
For these reasons, and in reliance on the findings in the August 17,
2011 and May 7, 2009 Federal Register actions, EPA concludes that there
is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
metconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate high performance liquid chromatography method with
tandem mass spectrometry (Method D0604), entitled ``The Determination
of Residues of BAS 555 F and its Metabolites in Corn and Cotton
Matrices Using LC/MS/MS''), with the German multi-residue method DFG
S19 as a confirmatory method, is adequate as an enforcement method.
Method D0604 determines metconazole (cis- and trans-isomers), 1,2,4-
triazole (T), triazolyalanine (TA), and triazolylacetic acid (TAA). DFG
S19 uses gas chromatography/nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) or
gas chromatography/mass spectrometric detection (GC/MS). The methods
may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for metconazole on corn, field,
stover and corn, pop, stover.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of metconazole,
measured as the sum of cis- and trans- isomers, in or on corn, field,
stover at 30 ppm and corn, pop, stover at 30 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 24, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec.  180.617, paragraph (a), revise the following entries in the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.617  Metconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *

Corn, field, stover.....................................              30

                                * * * * *

Corn, pop, stover.......................................              30

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04865 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P