[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65375-65376]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2011-0268]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Passaic River, Harrison, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has changed the drawbridge operation
regulations that govern the operation of the Amtrak's Dock Bridge
across the Passaic River, mile 5.0, at Harrison, New Jersey. The owner
of the bridge has requested relief from crewing the bridge at all times
because the bridge has received few requests to open during past years.
It is expected that an advance notice requirement for bridge openings
will provide relief to the bridge owner while continuing to meet the
reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: This rule is effective November 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0268 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0268 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On June 24, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations Passaic River in the
Federal Register (76 FR 37039). We received no comments on the proposed
rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Basis and Purpose

    The Amtrak Dock Bridge, mile 5.0, across the Passaic River at
Harrison, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the closed position
of 24 feet at mean high water and 29 feet at mean low water. The
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.739(e).
    The existing drawbridge operation regulations require the draw to
open on signal; except that, from 7:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
to 6:50 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw
need not be opened. At all other times, an opening may be delayed no
more than ten minutes, unless the draw tender and the vessel operator,
communicating by radio-telephone, agree to a longer delay.
    The Coast Guard received a request from the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the owner of the bridge, for relief
from crewing the bridge at all times, because the bridge has received
only eight requests to open during the past three years.
    Amtrak requested that a twenty four hour advance notice be required
for all bridge openings, except during the existing morning and
afternoon closed periods.
    As a result of the fact that the bridge has received only eight
requests to open during the past three years, the Coast Guard believes
it is reasonable for the bridge owner to require a twenty four hour
advance notice for bridge openings and that doing so would continue to
meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this
final rule.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal.
Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the
potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons:
    The bridge has only received eight requests to open during the past
three years. The bridge openings can still be obtained at any time,
except the morning and afternoon closed periods, by providing at least
a twenty four hour advance notice.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit the bridge.
    This final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
    The bridge only received eight requests to open during the past
three years. The bridge openings can still be obtained at any time,
except during the Monday through Friday closed periods, by providing a
twenty four hour advance notice.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.739, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.739  Passaic River.

* * * * *
    (e) The draw of the Amtrak Dock Bridge, mile 5.0, at Harrison,
shall open on signal after at least a twenty-four hour advance notice
is given by calling the number posted at the bridge; except that, from
7:20 a.m. to 9:20 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:50 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not be opened for the
passage of vessel traffic. At all other times, a bridge opening may be
delayed no more than ten minutes for the passage of rail traffic,
unless the draw tender and the vessel operator agree to a longer delay.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 16, 2011.
Daniel A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-26549 Filed 10-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 40591-40594]
[DOCID:fr12au09-63]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0592; FRL-8432-1]

Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of request by registrants to voluntarily cancel
certain pesticide registrations.

DATES: Unless a request is withdrawn by September 11, 2009 for these
registrations, for which the registrant requested a waiver of the 180-
day comment period, orders will be issued canceling these
registrations. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests postmarked
no later than September 11, 2009 Comments must be received on or before
September 11, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments and your withdrawal request, identified
by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0592, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Written withdrawal requests,
Attention: Barbara Briscoe, Product Reregistration Branch, Special
Review and Reregistration Division, (7508P).
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0592. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available
in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Briscoe, Special Review and
Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use
pesticides, 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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:

    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from
registrants to cancel 48 pesticide products registered under section 3
or 24(c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by
registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of
this unit:

     Table 1.--Registrations with Pending Requests for Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.             Product Name        Chemical Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
228-195                           Riverdale DP-4      2,4-DP
                                   Amine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
352-694                           Tenn-Cop 5E         Copper Salts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
478-76                            Real Kill Flying    Resmethrin
                                   Insect Killer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
478-77                            Real Kill Indoor/   Resmethrin
                                   Outdoor Plus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
478-86                            Real Kill Liquid    Resmethrin
                                   House and Garden
                                   Bug Killer for
                                   House Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
478-122                           Real Kill           Resmethrin
                                   Automatic Indoor
                                   Plus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-628                           SMCP Vapona         Aliphatic Solvents
                                   Insecticide 50%
                                   Concentrate
                                   Solution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-646                           x-Cel Oil plus      Aliphatic Solvents
                                   Malathion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-728                           Seven Brand         Carbaryl
                                   Carbaryl
                                   Insecticide 5%
                                   Turf Insecticide
                                   Granules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-843                           Pratt's Summer      Aliphatic Solvents
                                   Spray Oil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-848                           Pratt's 6N          Aliphatic Solvents
                                   Superior Oil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-886                           Agrisect Superior   Aliphatic Solvents
                                   Oil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769-928                           Warner Enterprises  Aliphatic Solvents
                                   Indoor Insect
                                   Fogger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5481-428                          NAA 800             Naphthalene Acetic
                                                       Acid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5481-432                          Technical 1-        Naphthalene Acetic
                                   Naphthalene         Acid
                                   Acetic Acid
                                   Sodium Salt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8660-83                           White Fly Spray     Resmethrin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8660-138                          Flea and Tick Pet   Resmethrin
                                   Spray
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8845-33                           Vertagreen          Resmethrin
                                   Professional Use
                                   with Dacthal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8845-64                           Vertagreen Weed &   Resmethrin
                                   Feed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8845-65                           Vertagreen Copper   Resmethrin
                                   Sulfate Crystals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8845-74                           Pro - Tek with      Resmethrin
                                   Balan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9688-21                           Chemsico            Resmethrin
                                   Insecticide for
                                   Flying Insects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9688-48                           Chemsico Wasp and   Resmethrin
                                   Hornet Killer II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9688-49                           Chemsico Wasp and   Resmethrin
                                   Hornet Killer III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9688-102                          Chemsico Home       Resmethrin
                                   Insect Control
                                   Spray A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9688-223                          Chemsico            Resmethrin
                                   Insecticide FR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10807-208                         Misty Root Killer   Copper Sulfate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46515-45                          Wasp & Hornet       Resmethrin
                                   Killer 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

71368-32                          Nufarm 2,4 DB Weed  2,4 DB
                                   Killer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
71368-33                          Nufarm Buticide     2,4 DB
                                   200 Weed Killer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
73049-317                         Cyperkil EC         Cypermethrin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
73049-318                         Cyperkil WSB        Cypermethrin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75402-2                           HILO Premises       Piperonyl Butoxide
                                   Spray
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75402-3                           Aloe Care Flea &    Piperonyl Butoxide
                                   Tick Shampoo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL820033                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Pecans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL870008                          Pecans Growing      Aldicarb
                                   Under Drip
                                   Irrigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ820015                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Pecans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA090004                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA820013                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Pecans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA870003                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Pecans Growing
                                   Under Drip
                                   Irrigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS830009                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Pecans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC780021                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Flue-Cured
                                   Tobacco
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC820008                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Flue-Cured
                                   Tobacco
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM820016                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Pecans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC830009                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Pecans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC090003                          Temik Brand 15G     Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX790010                          Termik Brand 15G    Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA820013                          Termik Brand 15G    Aldicarb
                                   Aldicarb
                                   Pesticide-Use on
                                   Flue-Cured
                                   Tobacco
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of
publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of
these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring
the retention of a registration should contact the applicable
registrant directly during this 30-day period.
    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number:

        Table 2.--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Company No.                 Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
228                                         Nufarm Americas, Inc.
                                            150 Harvester Dr., Suite 200
                                            Burr Ridge, IL 60527
------------------------------------------------------------------------
352                                         Dupont Crop Protection
                                            1007 Market Street
                                            Wilmington, DE 19898
------------------------------------------------------------------------
478                                         Div. of United Industries,
                                             Corp.
                                            PO Box 142642
                                            St. Louis, MO 63114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
769                                         Value Gardens Supply, LLC
                                            D/B/A Value Garden Supply
                                            PO Box 585
                                            St Joseph, MO 64502
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5481                                        Amvac Chemical Corp. D/B/A
                                             Amvac
                                            4695 MacArthur Court, Suite
                                             200
                                            Newport Beach, CA 92660
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8660                                        United Industries
                                            D/B/A Sylorr Plant Corp.
                                            PO Box 142642
                                            St. Louis, MO 63114
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8845                                        Spectrum Group
                                            Div. of United Industries
                                             Corp.
                                            PO Box 142642
                                            St. Louis, MO 63114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9688                                        Chemsico
                                            Div. of United Industries
                                             Corp.
                                            PO Box 142642
                                            St. Louis, MO 63114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10807                                       Amrep, Inc.
                                            990 Industrial Park Drive
                                            Marietta, GA 30062
------------------------------------------------------------------------
46515                                       Celex, Div. of United
                                             Industries Corp.
                                            PO Box 142642
                                            St. Louis, MO 63114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
71368                                       Nufarm, Inc.
                                            150 Harvester Drive, Suite
                                             200
                                            Burr Ridge, IL 60527
------------------------------------------------------------------------
73049                                       Valent Biosciences Corp.
                                            870 Technology Way, Suite
                                             100
                                            Libertyville, IL 60068
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75402                                       Boss Pet Products, Inc.
                                            1645 Rockside Road, Suite
                                             200
                                            Maple Heights, OH 44137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL820033                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL870008                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ820015                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA090004                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA820013                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA870003                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS830009                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC780021                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC820008                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM820016                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC830009                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC090003                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX90010                                     Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA820013                                    Bayer Cropscience, LP
                                            2 T.W. Alexander Drive
                                            Research Triangle Park, NC
                                             27709
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, the Administrator may approve such a request.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked no later than September 11,
2009. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will
apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in
this notice. If the products have been subject to a previous
cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other
provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. The
withdrawal request must also include a commitment to pay any
reregistration fees due, and to fulfill any applicable unsatisfied data
requirements.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the
cancellation order. The orders effecting these requested cancellations
will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing
stocks until all stocks are exhausted, unless other factors (such as
hazard) necessitate modified terms. This policy is in accordance with
the Agency's statement of policy as prescribed in the Federal Register
of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL-3846-4). Exceptions to this general
rule will be made if a product poses a risk concern, or is in
noncompliance with reregistration requirements, or is subject to a data
call-in. In all cases, product-specific disposition dates will be given
in the cancellation orders.
    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply,
existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be
distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided
that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and
labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will
be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale,
distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already
been imposed, as in a special review action, or where the Agency has
identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a
particular chemical.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 5, 2009.
Patricia L. Moe,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-19311 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78808-78809]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27078]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9955-07-Region 5]

Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science and
Information Subcommittee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public
teleconference of the Science and Information Subcommittee (SIS) to the
Great Lakes Advisory Board (Board). The purpose of this meeting is to
discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19
and other relevant matters.

DATES: The teleconference will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2016
from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Central Time, 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment.
Due to administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting
with less than 15 calendar days' public notice.

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference will be held by teleconference
only. The teleconference number is: 1-877-226-9607; participant code:
605 016 6037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this teleconference may contact Rita
Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information on the GLRI, the Board, and
SIS can be found at http://glri.us/public.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SIS was established in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-
463. The SIS is composed of members from governmental, private sector,
non-profit and academic organizations, appointed by the EPA
Administrator in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Task Force
(IATF), who were selected based on their established records of
distinguished service in their professional community and their
knowledge of ecological protection and restoration issues. The SIS will
assist the Board in providing ongoing advice on Great Lakes adaptive
management and may provide other recommendations, as requested by the
IATF.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and other materials
in support of the meeting will be available at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees
provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public
can submit relevant comments for consideration by the SIS. Input from
the public to the SIS will have the most impact if it provides specific
information for the SIS to consider. Members of the public wishing to
provide comments should contact the DFO directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at this public meeting will be limited to three
minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to
comment. Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing
(preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by
November 16, 2016 to be

placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting.
    Written Statements: Written statements must be received by November
14, 2016 so that the information may be made available to the SIS for
consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the
following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one
electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two
versions of each document submitted: One each with and without
signatures because only documents without signatures may be published
on the GLRI Web page.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at the phone
number or email address noted above, preferably at least seven days
prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.

    Dated: November 2, 2016.
Cameron Davis,
Senior Advisor to the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-27078 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


consider when determining whether facilities are local distribution,
and the Commission does not define the other factors it may use nor
explain how its criteria will adequately differentiate between local
distribution and transmission facilities. Similarly, TAPS and ELCON
state that

several of the seven factors are very similar to components of the core
definition and exclusions and to items on the ``Detailed Information to
Support an Exception Request'' form. TAPS and ELCON thus contend that
NERC's exception process analysis and the Commission's local
distribution analysis will likely overlap each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ NRECA Request for Rehearing at 6.
    \137\ NRECA Request for Rehearing at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. NYPSC, NARUC and APPA state that the NERC exception process
does not explicitly provide for state involvement.\138\ NYPSC and NARUC
believe that, because the states have a unique interest and
jurisdictional role, the exceptions process must allow for direct state
participation, including the right to submit comments and contribute to
the development of the record prior to any preliminary or final
determinations being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ APPA states that the Commission could consider forming a
standing federal-state joint board, pursuant to section 209(a) of
the FPA, to address local distribution determinations, given that
its changes to exclusions E1 and E3 will substantially increase the
need for and frequency of such determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination

    101. The Commission denies rehearing on these issues. In the Final
Rule, the Commission acted consistent with legal precedent that the
question of whether facilities are used in local distribution is a
question of fact to be decided by the Commission.\139\ The Final Rule
stated that the Commission would apply the factors in the Seven Factor
Test, plus other factors as the starting point for making local
distribution determinations.\140\ The Commission, however, did not
adopt Order No. 888 for use in this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See, e.g., California Pacific Electric Company, LLC, 133
FERC ] 61,018, at n.59 (2010) (``The Supreme Court has determined
that whether facilities are used in local distribution is a question
of fact to be decided by the Commission'') (citing FPC v. Southern
California Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205, 210 n.6 (1964)).
    \140\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at PP 69, 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    102. We disagree with arguments questioning the suitability of the
factors in the Seven Factor Test for use in the reliability context or
that some of the factors seem less appropriate to consider when
determining whether facilities are used in local distribution. FPA
sections 201(b)(1) and 215 both use the legal term ``local
distribution.'' As we stated in the Final Rule, the determination
whether an element or facility is ``used in local distribution,'' as
the phrase is used in the FPA, requires a jurisdictional analysis and
use of the factors in the Seven Factor Test, among others, ``comports
with relevant legal precedent.'' \141\ Therefore, we are not persuaded
that the factors in the Seven Factor Test are an unsuitable means to
determine whether a facility is used in local distribution. The
question of whether all the factors are relevant in each case is one
for the Commission to determine in specific circumstances. With regard
to NRECA's argument that NERC and the Commission lack reliability
jurisdiction over dual use facilities, the Commission will address that
issue when relevant to a specific case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. We are not persuaded by the argument that the Commission needs
to define at this time the additional factors it may use or explain how
its criteria will adequately differentiate between local distribution
and transmission facilities. The Final Rule stated that local
distribution determinations are factual in nature and the Commission
will make decisions on a case-by-case basis. We anticipate that
applicants will take the seven factors into account and, to the extent
other factors are relevant, they are free to raise them as part of
their inquiry and the Commission will address them at that time.
Further, we find that TAPS' and ELCON's contention that the similarity
between the seven factors, the core definition and the Detailed
Information Form will cause significant overlap between NERC's analysis
of an exception request and the Commission's analysis of a request for
a finding that a facility is used in local distribution is premature
and speculative.
    104. With regard to state involvement in Commission local
distribution determinations, the Final Rule only stated the Commission
would apply the factors in the Seven Factor Test and did not adopt
Order No 888 for use here.\142\ The Commission notes that state
regulators are not excluded from involvement in a Commission proceeding
involving a local distribution determination and will have the
opportunity to participate in the local distribution determination
process at the Commission. As part of that participation, they may
support their position with evidence that a state commission determined
that the facilities in question are local distribution facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. Similarly, with regard to state involvement in the exception
process, we deny rehearing. Petitioners essentially repeat their
arguments from the NOPR and we are not persuaded that our finding in
the Final Rule was unreasonable. In the Final Rule, the Commission
found that the exception process ``should be one based on the technical
reliability issues of the specific case presented. . . . [A] procedure
that encouraged or even invited multi-party filings would unduly
complicate the process. . . . '' \143\ Nevertheless, to provide
transparency and opportunity for participation, NERC's exception
process provides that ``(1) detailed notice of any request would be
provided to every Registered Entity with reliability oversight
obligation for the Element subject to the Request and (2) general
information about the request will be publicly posted,'' thereby
allowing third parties including state regulators ``adequate
opportunity to provide comments regarding the request without formally
participating in the process.'' \144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 257.
    \144\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 257 citing NERC ROP
Petition, Att. 9 (``The Development Process and Basis for the ROP
Team's Recommended Provisions--How Stakeholder Comments were
Considered and Addressed'') at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Designation of Bulk Electric System Elements

    106. In the Final Rule, the Commission concluded that registered
entities must inform the Regional Entity of any self-determination that
an element is no longer part of the bulk electric system. We noted that
section 501 of NERC's Rules of Procedure provides that each registered
entity must notify its Regional Entity of any matters that affect the
registered entities' responsibilities with respect to Reliability
Standards. Section 501 also requires entities to inform the Regional
Entity of any self-determination that an element is no longer part of
the bulk electric system.\145\ We further stated that this requirement
does not involve a justification of why the element is being excluded
but rather as one that involves nothing more than notification.\146\
The Commission also concluded that it has the authority to designate an
element as part of the bulk electric system pursuant to our authority
set forth in sections 215(a)(1) and (b)(1) of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 317.
    \146\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    107. Entities request clarification and/or rehearing on three
aspects of these determinations: (1) How must a registered entity
inform a Regional Entity that it has excluded an element from the bulk
electric system; (2) what process a Regional Entity must use to include
a facility if it disagrees with a registered entity's declaration that
a specific facility is not part of the bulk

electric system; and (3) if the Commission decides on its own to
designate an element as part of the bulk electric system, it should
consult state regulatory authorities.
1. Regional Entity Role
    108. Snohomish requests clarification, or in the alternative
rehearing, with respect to several aspects of the process for removing
specific elements from the bulk electric system. Snohomish notes that
the Commission specifies that a registered entity may remove specific
elements from the bulk electric system by simply notifying its Regional
Entity, and Snohomish believes that notifying its Regional Entity by a
simple written or electronic notification satisfies the notification
requirement. Snohomish also states that the Final Rule does not explain
what would occur if the Regional Entity disagrees with the registered
entity's determination that an element is not part of the bulk electric
system. Snohomish requests clarification that, in the absence of bad
faith on the part of the registered entity providing a notification
that an element is not a bulk electric system element, that element
should not be treated as part of the bulk electric system unless and
until a contrary determination is made by NERC. Snohomish states that
this clarification will help ensure that registered entities clearly
understand their reliability compliance obligations at a facility-by-
facility level, and that, if they apply the bulk electric system
definition in good faith, they will not be subject to retroactive
liability if that good faith determination is later successfully
challenged by the Regional Entity and overturned by NERC.
    109. Snohomish also requests clarification that, in the event that
a Regional Entity disagrees with a registered entity's determination
that an element is not part of the bulk electric system, the Regional
Entity must use the exception process to include the element. Snohomish
asserts that this clarification will ensure that there is a well-
understood and consistent procedure for inclusion of elements in the
bulk electric system. In the alternative, Snohomish states that the
Commission should clarify that the existing appeals process in Appendix
5A of the NERC Rules of Procedure, which Snohomish states ``provides
for appeals only from entity registration decisions and from decisions
regarding entity certification,'' should govern when the Regional
Entity disagrees with a registered entity's designation of an element
as not part of the bulk electric system.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Snohomish Request for Clarification, or in the
Alternative, Petition for Rehearing at 5 (footnotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    110. The Commission agrees with Snohomish that, in the absence of
bad faith, if a registered entity applies the bulk electric system
definition and determines that an element no longer qualifies as part
of the bulk electric system, upon notifying the appropriate Regional
Entity that the element is no longer part of the bulk electric system
the element should not be treated as part of the bulk electric system
unless NERC makes a contrary determination in the exception process. If
the Regional Entity disagrees with the classification of the element
and believes the element is necessary for reliable operation, the
Regional Entity should initiate an exception request to include the
element in the bulk electric system. If NERC agrees with the Regional
Entity and determines that the element should be included in the bulk
electric system, the registered entity should not be subject to
retroactive liability for the time period the element was not included
in the bulk electric system.
2. Designation of Facilities
    111. APPA argues that, if the Commission decides on its own to
designate an element as part of the bulk electric system, it should
consult state regulatory authorities in this process and not simply
relegate them to notice and opportunity for comment.\148\ Additionally,
APPA states that ``a full evidentiary hearing, with opportunities for
discovery and cross-examination, as opposed to a paper hearing may be
required in such circumstances because of the fact-based nature of
these issues, and because the Commission would be making precedent-
setting policy determinations that could affect many public utilities
and registered entities.'' \149\ APPA requests that, consistent with
the Commission's approval of NERC's implementation plan, the Commission
clarify that entities subject to Commission-designated bulk electric
system facility determinations will be given an appropriate amount of
time to become compliant with reliability standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ APPA Request for Rehearing at 29.
    \149\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    112. We deny rehearing with respect to the APPA's request that the
Commission consult state regulatory authorities when the Commission
elects to designate an element as part of the bulk electric system. We
are not persuaded by APPA's justification for why the Commission should
provide a greater role to state regulators than is already provided to
all interested parties through notice and opportunity for comment. As
we stated in the Final Rule, we expect that registered entities,
Regional Entities, and NERC will proactively identify and include
elements in the bulk electric system. However, if no other entity
initiates the process to include in the bulk electric system an element
necessary for the operation of the interconnected transmission network,
the Commission has the authority to do so. If the Commission finds it
necessary to initiate this authority, it would make a final
determination after providing interested parties notice and opportunity
for comment.\150\ For the same reasons stated above in connection with
a state role in a local distribution determination and the exception
process, we are not persuaded by APPA's argument that state regulators
need additional process other than that already afforded to all
interested parties provided notice and opportunity for comment.
Accordingly, we deny APPA's request for rehearing on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    113. In response to APPA's contention that a full evidentiary
hearing is necessary when the Commission proposes to designate an
element as part of the bulk electric system, the Commission will not
require or preclude use of a full evidentiary hearing. The Commission
will provide due process as required by the APA which in appropriate
instances the Commission can accomplish through a paper hearing.
    114. In response to APPA's comments regarding the implementation
schedule when the Commission determines an element should be part of
the bulk electric system, we agree that an entity will have an
appropriate amount of time to become compliant with applicable
Reliability Standards.

G. Other Requested Clarifications

1. Meaning of ``Non-Retail Generation''
    115. Snohomish requests that the Commission provide clarification
concerning the meaning of the term ``non-retail generation'' in
exclusion E3. Snohomish requests that the Commission clarify that
``non-retail generation'' includes both customer-owned, behind-the-
meter generation that is not resold on the Bulk-Power

System to wholesale purchasers and generation that a load-serving
utility uses solely to provide power to its own customers and does not
sell to other wholesale purchasers. Snohomish maintains that this
result is consistent with FPA section 201(b)(1), which excludes
generation facilities and facilities used for the intrastate sale of
electric energy from the Commission's jurisdiction.
Commission Determination
    116. We decline to make the requested clarification. In the Final
Rule several entities requested clarification of various terms
including the term ``non-retail.'' The Commission found that the phrase
was sufficiently clear.\151\ We reiterate our statement in the Final
Rule that entities may pursue further clarification from NERC in an
appropriate forum such as NERC's Phase 2 project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Effective Date
    117. Snohomish requests that the Commission clarify that the
revised definition will become effective for NERC compliance purposes
on July 1, 2013, and that the transition period discussed in the Final
Rule will extend twenty-four months from that date.
Commission Determination
    118. The Commission grants Snohomish's clarification. NERC stated
that the revised definition become effective on the first day of the
second calendar quarter after receiving applicable regulatory approval,
or, in those jurisdictions where no regulatory approval is required, on
the first day of the second calendar quarter after its adoption by the
NERC Board of Trustees. Order No. 773 was published in the Federal
Register on January 4, 2013 with the Final Rule becoming effective 60
days thereafter, or March 5, 2013. Thus, the first day of the second
calendar quarter after March 5 is July 1, 2013.

H. Requests for Revised Information Collection Burden and Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis

    119. In the Final Rule, the Commission stated that it did not need
to reassess the reporting burden estimates and Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) certification. NARUC requests that the Commission clarify its
RFA analysis in light of its decision to rule on jurisdictional
questions and to direct NERC to not permit certain 100 kV and above
facilities that are looped with sub-100 kV facilities to qualify for
exclusion E1. NARUC maintains that the Commission modified the
definition by changing language contained in exclusions E1 and E3, the
net effect of which would be to increase the number of entities that
might choose to use the exception process. Therefore, according to
NARUC, it is likely that the Commission's actions will impose
unjustified regulatory burdens and costs.
    120. NRECA also states that the public reporting burden and
information collection requirement section of the Final Rule did not
discuss additional costs associated with the Commission making local
distribution determinations or entities having to apply for an
exception as a result of the Commission's interpretation of exclusion
E1. NRECA also states that the Commission erred by not modifying the
RFA certification that the Final Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NRECA seeks
clarification of the Final Rule because it believes that the
jurisdiction determination process and the exclusion E1 directive will
affect other small entities that were not identified previously, and
the Commission must identify affected entities before it can certify
the determination. NRECA states that the RFA requires that all effects
of a rule on small entities must be considered, not just initial
compliance costs or only the costs associated with small entities that
identify, for the first time, facilities that are subject to the bulk
electric system definition. NRECA requests that the Commission revisit
the impact of the Final Rule on small entities, and thereafter clarify
and provide greater detail with respect to its RFA certification.
    121. Similarly, APPA states that the Commission's modifications to
the definition will substantially increase the public reporting burden,
necessitating a new analysis. APPA argues that the Commission's changes
to exclusions E1 and E3 would substantially increase the number of
required studies and exception requests, which necessarily affect the
associated paperwork burden estimates. Yet, according to APPA, the
Commission has failed to reassess its burden calculations and adjust
its estimates which will result in the imposition of unjustified
regulatory burdens and costs.
    122. APPA also states that the Commission must reassess its RFA
analysis to account for the Commission's changes to exclusions E1 and
E3. According to APPA, many of the entities filing these requests might
not currently be on the NERC Compliance Registry or might only be
listed as distribution providers or load serving entities. In addition,
APPA argues that the Commission estimate of 418 small entities is too
low. APPA states that it alone has approximately 330 members on the
NERC registry, about 290 of which fall within the definition of a small
utility under the relevant Small Business Administration definition.
Commission Determination
    123. The Commission grants rehearing in part and denies rehearing
in part. The Commission grants rehearing on the need to reassess the
burden estimates relative to the Final Rule modifications regarding
exclusions E1 and E3. In revising the information cost estimates, the
Commission also included additional costs associated with the local
distribution determinations. However, because the Commission grants
rehearing on implementing exclusions E1 and E3 to instead direct NERC
to modify the definition pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5) in the Phase
2 process, the Commission will address estimates in connection with
that change after NERC submits its proposal.
1. Information Collection Statement
    124. In the Final Rule, the Commission estimated the reporting
burden for entities to apply the revised bulk electric system
definition to all elements to determine if those elements are included
in the bulk electric system pursuant to the revised definition. The
Commission also estimated the burden for entities' use of the exception
process as well as the costs for Regional Entities and NERC to process
exception requests. In addition, the Commission estimated the public
reporting burden for entities to identify new elements under the
revised bulk electric system definition.
    125. While the Commission is providing revised information
collection estimates, we disagree with NARUC and APPA that the
Commission's modifications to NERC's proposal will substantially
increase the public reporting burden or will impose unjustified
regulatory burdens and costs. None of the petitioners provide data to
quantify or substantiate their claims. With regard to the alleged
increase in case-specific exceptions applications, APPA cites to one
large entity that claimed that it would have to file dozens of
exception requests to have looped configurations excluded. However, we
are not persuaded by APPA and others that the Commission's discussion
of exclusion E1 (radial systems) pertaining to sub-100 kV

looped systems with multiple connections at 100 kV and above and the
corresponding modification to exclusion E3 will result in a substantial
increase in exception applications. Rather, as explained in the Final
Rule, as well as this order on rehearing, the Commission directed NERC
to develop a modification to exclusion E3 (local networks) that would
eliminate the 100 kV ``floor'' to be eligible for the exclusion. As a
result, by design, we anticipate that many entities with sub-100 kV
looped configurations that are not eligible for exclusion E1 may avoid
submitting an exception request and be eligible for the E3 exclusion as
revised by the Final Rule. As explained elsewhere, an entity may apply
the E3 exclusion without having to submit an application to NERC for a
case-specific ruling.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See supra P 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. With regard to applications submitted to the Commission for
local distribution determinations, we expect the number of local
distribution determinations to be small.\153\ Petitioners have not
provided information in their rehearing requests that persuade us to
change our expectation. Thus, the Commission estimates that there will
be approximately eight local distribution determinations per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ See Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    127. Although we believe that the burden estimates set forth in the
Final Rule are generally sound, we nonetheless revise certain aspects
to provide more accurate estimates. To account for the Final Rule
directive for exclusions E1 and E3, the Commission has increased by
five the number of engineering hours needed for ``System Review and
List Creation'' for transmission owners. The Commission increased the
number of engineering hours by three for the same review by
distribution providers. System Review and List Creation corresponds to
step 1 of NERC's proposed transition plan, which requires each U.S.
asset owner to apply the revised bulk electric system definition to all
elements to determine if those elements are included in the bulk
electric system pursuant to the revised definition.\154\ The Commission
added these hours to recognize the additional time needed for an entity
that has a looped configuration operating below 100 kV with multiple
connections at 100 kV and above that is not eligible for exclusion E1
to analyze whether the configuration is eligible for exclusion E3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See NERC BES Petition at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    128. In addition, the Commission is increasing the estimate of the
number of exception requests in the first two years by approximately
ten percent, from 260 per year to 285 requests per year. The original
estimate of 260 requests per year considered all requests for
exceptions, undifferentiated by whether the applicant's request is
based on exclusions E1 and E3 or any other part of the definition.
Here, we estimate an additional 25 exception requests that may be
submitted by entities with looped configurations operating below 100 kV
that, based on the Final Rule, do not qualify for the E1 radial system
exclusion. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that a
greater increase of exception requests is warranted because the
directive that NERC modify the local network E3 exclusion by
eliminating the 100 kV floor should allow many, if not most, of the
entities that operate systems with a sub-100 kV loop to exclude those
100 kV and above facilities that connect them to the interconnected
transmission network (without an exception request) based on the E3
exclusion (noting that the elements operating below 100 kV are already
excluded from the bulk electric system by the core definition).
    129. The revised estimates are shown as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ The ``entities'' listed in this table are describing a
role an entity is registered for in the NERC registry. For example,
a single entity may be registered as a transmission owner and
generator owner. The total number of entities applicable to this
rule is 1,522, based on the NERC registry. The total number of
estimated roles is 1,730.
    \156\ From the total 1,730 estimated roles, we estimate an
average of 285 requests per year in the first two years. See Order
No. 773 at n. 225. Therefore, the estimated total number of hours
per year for years 1 and 2, using an average of 285 requests per
year, is 26,790 hours. We estimate 20 requests per year in year 3
and ongoing.
    \157\ The Commission estimates 92 hours for a local distribution
request comprised of 60 engineer hours, 8 record keeping hours and
24 legal hours. For the local distribution burden category, the
loaded (salary plus benefits) costs are: $60/hour for an engineer;
$27/hour for recordkeeping; and $106/hour for legal. The breakdown
of cost by item and year follows: (sum of hourly expense per request
* number of local distribution determinations) = ((60 hrs * $60/hr)
+ (8 hrs * $27/hr) + (24 hrs * $106/hr)) * 8 requests) = $50,880.
Hourly costs are loaded (wage plus benefits) and are based on
Commission staff study and industry data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of
           Requirement            Number and type of     responses per     Average number of  Total burden hours
                                      entity\155\           entity        hours per response
                                  (1)...............  (2)...............  (3)...............  (1)*(2)*(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Review and List Creation.  333 Transmission    1 response........  85 (engineer        28,305 Yr 1.
                                   Owners.                                 hours).
                                  843 Generator       1 response........  16 (engineer        13,488 Yr 1.
                                   Owners.                                 hours).
                                  554 Distribution    1 response........  27 (engineer        14,958 Yr 1.
                                   Providers.                              hours).
Exception Requests\156\.........  1,730 total         285 responses each  94 (60 engineer     26,790 hrs in Yrs
                                   Transmission        in Yrs 1 and 2      hrs, 32 record      1 and 2.
                                   Owners, Generator   (total for all      keeping hrs, 2
                                   Owners and          entities, i.e.,     legal hrs).
                                   Distribution        not per entity).
                                   Providers.
                                                      20 responses in Yr  94 (60 engineer     736 hrs in Yr 3
                                                       3 and ongoing       hrs, 32 record      and ongoing.
                                                       (total for all      keeping hrs, 2
                                                       entities, i.e.,     legal hrs).
                                                       not per entity).
Local Distribution                8 entities........  1 response........  92 (60 engineer     736 hrs.
 Determinations\157\.                                                      hrs, 8 record
                                                                           keeping hrs, 24
                                                                           legal hrs).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs to Comply:
     Year 1: $13,841,400 ($367,400 increase from the initial
estimate)
     Year 2: $10,436,340 ($167,780 increase from the initial
estimate)
     Year 3 and ongoing: $4,310,800 ($50,704 increase from the
initial estimate) \158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See NOPR, 139 FERC ] 61,247 at P 135 for the initial
estimates. In the summary costs for years 1-3 displayed in the NOPR
and final rule, due to a arithmetic error, the Years 1-3 cost
estimates should have been $13,474,000, $10,268,560 and $4,259,920,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the burden categories above, the loaded (salary plus benefits)
costs are: $60/hour for an engineer; $27/hour for recordkeeping; and
$106/hour for legal. The revised breakdown of cost by item and year
follows:
     System Review and List Creation (year 1 only): (28,305 hrs
+ 13,488 hrs + 14,958 hrs) = 56,751 hrs * 60/hr = $3,405,060.
     Exception Requests (years 1 and 2): (sum of hourly expense
per request * number of exception requests) = ((60 hrs * $60/hr) + (32
hrs * $27/hr) + (2hrs * $106/hr)) * 285 requests) = $1,332,660.
     Local Distribution (each year): (sum of hourly expense per
request * number of exception requests) = ((60 hrs * $60/hr) + (8 hrs *
$27/hr) + (24 hrs * $106/hr)) * 8 requests) = $50,880.
    Title: FERC-725-J ``Definition of the Bulk Electric System''
    Action: Proposed Collection of Information
    OMB Control No: 1902-0259
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion
    Necessity of the Information: The proposed revision to NERC's
definition of the term bulk electric system, if adopted, would
implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better
ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically,
the proposal would ensure that certain facilities needed for the
operation of the nation's bulk electric system are subject to mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ For more information regarding the necessity of the
information collected, disclosed or retained, see Revisions to
Electric Reliability Organization Definition of Bulk Electric System
and Rules of Procedure, Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed
definition and has assured itself, by means of its internal review,
that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimate
associated with the information requirements.
    130. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    131. For submitting comments concerning the collection of
information and the associated burden estimate, please send your
comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be
submitted by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted
to OMB should include Docket Number RM12-6 and OMB Control Number 1902-
0259.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    132. The Commission grants rehearing in part, and denies rehearing
in part, with regard to the impact of the Final Rule on small entities'
applying for local distribution determinations at the Commission and
the Final Rule directive regarding implementation of exclusions E1 and
E3 for looped configurations. The Commission provides revised estimates
below.
    133. In the NOPR, the Commission estimated that approximately 418
of the 1,730 registered transmission owners, generator owners and
distribution service providers may fall within the definition of small
entities.\160\ The Commission estimated that, of the 418 small entities
affected, 50 small entities within the NPCC region would have to comply
with the rule. The Commission assumed that the rule would affect more
small entities in the NPCC Region than those outside NPCC because there
are more elements in NPCC that would be added to the bulk electric
system based on the new definition than elsewhere. The Commission
estimated the first year effect on small entities within the NPCC
region to be $39,414.\161\ The Commission based this figure on
information collection costs plus additional costs for compliance. The
Commission estimated the average annual effect per small entity outside
of NPCC will be less than for the entities within NPCC. The Commission
concluded that there would not be a significant economic impact for
small entities within or outside of NPCC because it should not
represent a significant percentage of the operating budget. In Order
No. 773, the Commission affirmed its analysis and certified that the
Final Rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ NOPR, 139 FERC ] 61,237 at P 138.
    \161\ NOPR, 139 FERC ] 61,237 at P 139.
    \162\ Order No. 773, 141 FERC ] 61,236 at P 338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. While we affirm our certification that the Final Rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we
grant rehearing in part to adjust our estimates on the impact of the
Final Rule on small entities. In particular, we adjust our initial
estimate to recognize the approximately $6,360 cost incurred by a small
entity that petitions the Commission for a local distribution
determination. As stated above, the Commission estimates eight local
distribution requests per year. The Commission does not believe that
small entities will account for all local distribution requests, but
even if they do, this estimate will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    135. We recognize that an entity may have some facilities that do
not qualify for exclusions E1 or E3 as revised by the Final Rule and
may choose to use the exception process. As stated above, the
Commission estimates that the total number of entities with looped
configurations that do not qualify for exclusions E1 or E3 who choose
to use the exception process to be approximately 25, based on an
approximately ten percent increase in the estimated number of exception
requests (i.e., an estimated 260 requests revised to 285 requests)
submitted during the first year after implementation. Of those, the
Commission estimates that ten of the entities could be small entities,
with the effect on those small entities to be $4,676 per entity. The
Commission bases this figure on the result of the exception request
calculation total above, $1,332,660, divided by the number of total
estimated exception requests, 285, resulting in the cost per exception
request equal to $4,676. We do not assume additional costs of
compliance for these ten small entities requesting exceptions because
looped systems connected at multiple connections of 100 kV and above
are already part of the bulk electric system. If the elements remain in
the bulk electric system as a result of the exception process, they
will not be newly identified elements and thus the compliance costs
associated with these elements are already accounted for in

other rulings approving Reliability Standards.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See, e.g., Order No 693, FERC Stats, & Regs. ]31,242 at PP
1899-1907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. Based on the above, as many as 18 small entities may
experience an economic impact upwards of approximately $50,000 per
year.\164\ The Commission does not consider 18 out of 418 small
entities (4.3%) to be a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the Final Rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ This is based on a conservative assumption that the eight
local distribution determination requests and the ten additional
entities to use the exception process all are part of the NPCC
region. Under this assumption, the total estimated annual cost per
entity is $50,450 ($39,414 + $6,360 + $4,676).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. APPA argues that their members' burdens will change by virtue
of being included on the NERC Compliance Registry. We disagree with
APPA on this issue. First, it is important to understand that NERC
registers entities, not facilities, in the NERC Compliance Registry. We
do not expect that NERC's revised BES definition, as well as our
determinations in the Final Rule and on rehearing, will have Compliance
Registry implications for a significant number of entities. As we have
indicated consistently throughout this proceeding, small entities in
the NPCC region are most likely to be substantively impacted by the
Final Rule, and we have previously recognized the costs of compliance
for that sub-group of small entities. APPA has not provided any
information to persuade us that NERC will register a significant number
of small entities as a result of the Final Rule.
    138. APPA also argues that the Commission's estimate that a total
of 418 small entities may be affected by the Final Rule is too low and
that the Commission did not justify this estimate. We disagree with
APPA on this matter. The Commission justified the estimate in the NOPR
stating that we started with the Order No. 693 estimate that all the
Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 693 would apply to
approximately 682 small entities.\165\ The Commission concluded that
the bulk electric system rulemaking would affect a smaller subset of
the categories of registered entities and thus our estimate was lower
in this proceeding than cited in Order 693.\166\ Therefore, we deny
rehearing on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ NOPR, 139 FERC ]61,247 at P 139 n.156 (citing Order No
693, FERC Stats, & Regs. ]31,242 at P 1940).
    \166\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Document Availability

    139. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    140. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    141. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    Note: Attachment A will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

ATTACHMENT A

Definition of Bulk Electric System

    Unless modified by the lists shown below, all Transmission
Elements operated at 100 kV or higher and Real Power and Reactive
Power resources connected at 100 kV or higher. This does not include
facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy
    Inclusions:
    I1--Transformers with the primary terminal and at least one
secondary terminal operated at 100 kV or higher unless excluded
under Exclusion E1 or E3.
    I2--Generating resource(s) with gross individual nameplate
rating greater than 20 MVA or gross plant/facility aggregate
nameplate rating greater than 75 MVA including the generator
terminals through the high-side of the step-up transformer(s)
connected at a voltage of 100 kV or above.
    I3--Blackstart Resources identified in the Transmission
Operator's restoration plan.
    I4--Dispersed power producing resources with aggregate capacity
greater than 75 MVA (gross aggregate nameplate rating) utilizing a
system designed primarily for aggregating capacity, connected at a
common point at a voltage of 100 kV or above.
    I5--Static or dynamic devices (excluding generators) dedicated
to supplying or absorbing Reactive Power that are connected at 100
kV or higher, or through a dedicated transformer with a high-side
voltage of 100 kV or higher, or through a transformer that is
designated in Inclusion I1.
    Exclusions:
    E1--Radial systems: A group of contiguous transmission Elements
that emanates from a single point of connection of 100 kV or higher
and:
    (a) Only serves Load. Or,
    (b) Only includes generation resources, not identified in
Inclusion I3, with an aggregate capacity less than or equal to 75
MVA (gross nameplate rating). Or,
    (c) Where the radial system serves Load and includes generation
resources, not identified in Inclusion I3, with an aggregate
capacity of non-retail generation less than or equal to 75 MVA
(gross nameplate rating).
    Note--A normally open switching device between radial systems,
as depicted on prints or one-line diagrams for example, does not
affect this exclusion.
    E2--A generating unit or multiple generating units on the
customer's side of the retail meter that serve all or part of the
retail Load with electric energy if: (i) the net capacity provided
to the BES does not exceed 75 MVA, and (ii) standby, back-up, and
maintenance power services are provided to the generating unit or
multiple generating units or to the retail Load by a Balancing
Authority, or provided pursuant to a binding obligation with a
Generator Owner or Generator Operator, or under terms approved by
the applicable regulatory authority.
    E3--Local networks (LN): A group of contiguous transmission
Elements operated at or above 100 kV but less than 300 kV that
distribute power to Load rather than transfer bulk-power across the
interconnected system. LN's emanate from multiple points of
connection at 100 kV or higher to improve the level of service to
retail customer Load and not to accommodate bulk-power transfer
across the interconnected system. The LN is characterized by all of
the following:
    (a) Limits on connected generation: The LN and its underlying
Elements do not include generation resources identified in Inclusion
I3 and do not have an aggregate capacity of non-retail generation
greater than 75 MVA (gross nameplate rating);
    (b) Power flows only into the LN and the LN does not transfer
energy originating outside the LN for delivery through the LN; and
    (c) Not part of a Flowgate or transfer path: The LN does not
contain a monitored Facility of a permanent Flowgate in the Eastern
Interconnection, a major transfer path within the Western
Interconnection, or a comparable monitored Facility in the ERCOT or
Quebec Interconnections, and is not a monitored Facility included in
an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL).
    E4--Reactive Power devices owned and operated by the retail
customer solely for its own use.
    Note--Elements may be included or excluded on a case-by-case
basis through the Rules of Procedure exception process.
[FR Doc. 2013-11130 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P