From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, April 15, 2016 12:45 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Colleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle S Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke Ovens ICR Group B Testing Facilities

Dr Jones,

As required by Enclosure 2 of the Coke Ovens ICR this email is to inform you that AK Steel Middletown plans to perform the pushing testing requirements and not the quenching stack testing.  Thanks

Katie Kistler
Environmental Manager of Air Programs
AK Steel Corporate Office
513-425-2972 Phone
513-519-9822 Cell
513-425-2635 Fax


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42064-42068]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD13-3-000]

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark; Order
Approving Reliability Standard: North American Electric Reliability
Corporation

    1. On December 31, 2012, as amended on January 4, 2013, the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition
for approval of Reliability Standard EOP-004-2--Event Reporting
(Petition). Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 identifies types of
reportable events and thresholds for reporting, requires responsible
entities to have an operating plan for reporting applicable events to
NERC and other entities (including law enforcement), and requires
reporting of threshold events within a 24 hour period. NERC requests
that Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 become effective the first day of
the first calendar quarter beginning six months following the effective
date of a final order in this proceeding, and that it replace
currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-004-1--Disturbance
Reporting and CIP-001-2a--Sabotage Reporting.
    2. As explained below, pursuant to section 215(d) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA),\1\ we approve Reliability Standard EOP-004-2, and find
that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. We further approve NERC's requested
effective date for EOP-004-2, along with the retirement of existing
Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    3. The Commission certified NERC as the Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO), as defined in section 215 of the FPA, in July
2006.\2\ In Order No. 693, the Commission reviewed an initial set of
Reliability Standards as developed and submitted for review by NERC,
and approved 83 standards as mandatory and enforceable, including the
currently-effective Disturbance Reporting Reliability Standard, EOP-
004-1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on reh'g 119 FERC ]
61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
    \3\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 617, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved Reliability
Standard CIP-001-1--Sabotage Reporting. In addition, the Commission
directed that NERC develop certain modifications to the standard, to
further define the term sabotage and provide guidance on triggering
events, specify baseline requirements for recognizing sabotage events,
incorporate periodic review of sabotage reporting procedures, and
require that applicable entities contact appropriate governmental
authorities within a specified time period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 471. The
Commission subsequently approved an interpretation of CIP-001-1
(Letter Order issued on Feb. 2, 2011 in Docket No. RR10-11-000,
accepting NERC's clarification regarding the ``appropriate parties''
to which reports of a sabotage event must be made), as well as a
regional modification to CIP-001-1a (Letter Order issued on August
2, 2011 in Docket RD11-6-000, approving a regional variance for
ERCOT to add transmission owners and generator owners as responsible
entities). Thus, the currently-effective version of the sabotage
reporting standard is CIP-001-2a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Project 2009-1--Disturbance and Sabotage Reporting was initiated
in April 2009, by PJM Interconnection, LLC, as a request for revision
to existing standard CIP-001-1.\5\ The standard drafting team developed
EOP-004-2, Event Reporting, as a means of combining the requirements of
EOP-004-1 and CIP-001 into a single reporting standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NERC Petition at 7.
    \6\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 and NERC's Petition

    6. NERC explains in its Petition that currently-effective
Reliability Standard EOP-004-1 contains the requirements for reporting
and analyzing disturbances, while CIP-001-2a addresses sabotage
reporting. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2
merges EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a, and represents a significant
improvement in the identification and reporting of events.\7\ According
to NERC, proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 provides a
comprehensive approach to reporting disturbances and events that have
the potential to impact the reliability of the bulk electric system in
accordance with several Commission directives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 5.
    \8\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. As proposed, EOP-004-2 would require the following:
     Responsible entities must have an operating plan for
reporting applicable events to NERC and others (e.g., Regional
Entities, applicable reliability coordinators, and law enforcement),
including procedures for reporting the specific events at thresholds
identified in Attachment 1 (Requirement R1);
     Responsible entities must report events as defined in
their operating plan ``within 24 hours of recognition of meeting an
event type threshold for reporting,'' or by the end of the next
business day if the event occurs on a weekend (Requirement R2); and
     Responsible entities must validate contact information
contained in the operating plan on an annual basis (Requirement R3).
    8. Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 includes two attachments.
Attachment 1 (Reportable Events) identifies types of events and
thresholds for reporting, such as damage or destruction of a facility,
physical threats to facilities, firm load loss, and generation loss.
Attachment 2 is a standardized form for event reporting. NERC notes
that in an

effort to minimize administrative burden, U.S. entities may elect to
use DOE Form OE-417 (Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report), rather
than Attachment 2, to report under EOP-004-2.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. NERC asserts that the results-based approach of EOP-004-2
includes clear criteria for reporting and consistent reporting
timelines. NERC also explains that the proposed reporting requirements
will ``allow governmental authorities and critical infrastructure
members the opportunity to react in a meaningful manner'' to
disturbance or other event information, thereby ``support[ing]
reliability principles and ultimately help[ing] to protect against
future malicious physical attacks.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. NERC notes, however, that the revised Reliability Standard does
not further define the term ``sabotage'' as directed in Order No. 693.
NERC explains that the standard drafting team determined that such a
definition could be ambiguous and ``inherently subjective.'' \11\ NERC
explains that the standard drafting team elected instead to develop a
specific list of reportable events and thresholds (Attachment 1 of the
standard), as a means of meeting the Commission's directive to provide
guidance on reportable events. NERC asserts that the development of a
list of reportable events and thresholds is an equally effective and
efficient means of addressing the Commission's directive in Order No.
693.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 8-9.
    \12\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Filing, Interventions and Comments

    11. Notices of NERC's Petition and its errata were issued on
January 2 and January 7, 2013, respectively, with comments, protests
and motions to intervene due on or before February 4, 2013. American
Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) filed a timely motion to intervene, on
January 30, 2013.
    12. On March 7, 2013, seven Independent System Operators and
Regional Transmission Organizations (Joint ISOs/RTOs) filed a joint
motion to intervene out-of-time and comments on NERC's Petition.\13\ In
support of their request for leave to intervene out-of-time, Joint
ISOs/RTOs maintain that they only learned that a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking would not issue in the docket after the January 30, 2013
close of the intervention and comment period. Joint ISOs/RTOs maintain
that their late comments will not prejudice NERC because ISOs and RTOs
raised similar comments during the standards development process, and
that late intervention will not prejudice any other party or otherwise
disrupt this proceeding as the Commission has not yet issued a
dispositive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Joint ISOs/RTOs are the California Independent System
Operator Corporation; Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.;
Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator; ISO New England
Inc.; Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; New
York Independent System Operator, Inc.; and Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Joint ISOs/RTOs assert that event reporting does not provide
for ``reliable operations'' and, therefore, should not be incorporated
in mandatory Reliability Standards. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend that event
reporting is ``an ex post activity'' that provides only prospective
benefits to system reliability.\14\ Joint ISOs/RTOs argue that the
Commission should ``distinguish between an obligation that is a
`requirement . . . to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power
system,' as those terms are defined in Section 215, and those
obligations that do not, such as administrative record-keeping and ex-
post reporting tasks.'' \15\ Joint ISOs/RTOs further maintain that the
event reporting requirements in EOP-004-2 are redundant to other
federal regulations, and that they expose registered entities to
unnecessary liability and burden.\16\ Based on these arguments, Joint
ISOs/RTOs take the position that the Commission should not only reject
EOP-004-2, but should also consider retiring or otherwise revisiting
the existing Reliability Standards governing disturbance and sabotage
reporting (EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Comments of Joint ISOs/RTOs at 6.
    \15\ Id. at 5 (quoting from FPA section 215).
    \16\ See id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Joint ISOs/RTOs argue, in the alternative, that if the
Commission approves EOP-004-2, the Commission should direct certain
modifications.\17\ In particular, Joint ISOs/RTOs advocate (1) limiting
reportable events ``to those that give third parties the opportunity to
act to mitigate the impact of the event'' such as vandalism; \18\ and
(2) limiting the scope of entities to receive reports to those that can
act to mitigate the actual event. Joint ISOs/RTOs further maintain that
certain thresholds for reportable events in Attachment 1 should be
modified to remove ambiguities. Joint ISOs/RTOs provide one example of
such ambiguity, claiming that, while Attachment 1 requires reporting
when ``[d]amage or destruction of a Facility . . . results in actions
to avoid a BES emergency,'' reliability coordinators and balancing
authorities take actions on a daily basis to ``avoid a BES Emergency''
without knowing whether the underlying system conditions resulted from
damage or destruction to a facility. According to Joint ISOs/RTOs, the
reliability coordinator or balancing authority will often not have the
information to determine whether to submit a report. Finally, Joint
ISOs/RTOs assert that a strict 24-hour reporting obligation is overly-
stringent and provides no reliability benefit since registered entities
would have separately mitigated the event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 8-14. Joint ISOs/RTOs acknowledge that, ``[i]f the
Commission disagrees with the Joint ISOs/RTOs' position that event
reporting should not be included in the Reliability Standards . . .,
proposed standard EOP-004-2 is an improvement over the two events
reporting standards it would replace . . . .'' Id. at 8.
    \18\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

    15. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, the timely, unopposed motion to intervene
filed by AMP serves to make it a party to this proceeding. Pursuant to
Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.214(d) (2012), we will also grant Joint ISOs/RTOs' late-filed
motion to intervene given their interest in the proceeding, the early
stage of the proceeding, and the absence of undue prejudice or delay.

B. Commission Determination

    16. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we approve Reliability
Standard EOP-004-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.\19\ We also approve NERC's
proposed implementation plan for the revised standard, including the
retirement of existing Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a
when EOP-004-2 becomes effective. Finally, we approve the proposed
violation risk factors and violation severity levels incorporated in
Reliability Standard EOP-004-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. We find that EOP-004-2 enhances the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System by requiring timely reporting of specific system
disturbance or sabotage events, allowing for both a real-time
operational benefit for near-term mitigation of the event, as well as a
prospective benefit through subsequent analysis and investigation,
including dissemination of lessons learned from the event. We conclude
that EOP-004-2 represents an improvement over the currently-

effective Reliability Standards, CIP-001-2a and EOP-004-1, in that it
provides a comprehensive approach to reporting disturbances and events
that have the potential to impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System and provides greater clarity concerning reportable events.
Further, we find that NERC has adequately addressed the Commission's
directives pertaining to event reporting, including requiring the
periodic update of reporting procedures. With regard to the Order No.
693 directives that NERC further refine the definition of ``sabotage''
and provide guidance on events that trigger reporting,\20\ we find that
NERC's development of Attachment 1, which lists specific types of
reportable events and thresholds for reporting, represents an equally
efficient and effective approach to address our underlying concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. In addition, we are not persuaded by Joint ISOs/RTOs' arguments
in support of their request that we either reject or direct
modification of the proposed standard.
    19. First, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs' argument that event reporting
is not a proper subject for Reliability Standards because it is
prospective in nature and is not directly related to or otherwise
supportive of ``reliable operations'' as that term is used in FPA
section 215. The prospective benefits from certain aspects of the
reporting requirements are not only valuable, but also a sufficient
basis for imposition of a mandatory and enforceable reliability
requirement. Events reporting allows entities to gain an early
understanding of the scope of an event, enabling requests for
assistance from other entities within the industry with appropriate
expertise and from other governmental agencies who otherwise might not
know about the event. While assistance would not always be in real
time, operational planning and system planning can benefit from outside
expertise to support planning for physical and cyber security, and even
to support and improve day-ahead and week-ahead operational planning.
Moreover, patterns of simple events can trigger further analysis and
recognition of the possibility that corrective measures should be taken
to prevent even more egregious events that might ensue if left
unchecked.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We have previously approved Reliability Standards that do
not affect ``real-time operations'' yet still support the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System, including Reliability Standards
within the several different transmission categories including
personnel performance, training and qualifications (PER);
transmission planning (TPL); and facility connection and
coordination (FAC-001 and FAC-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Moreover, EOP-004-2 has been designed to minimize redundancies
and multiple reporting obligations to the extent possible, by allowing
responsible entities to report an event either through submission of
its Attachment 2 or DOE Form OE-417.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See NERC Petition at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Nor are we persuaded by Joint ISOs/RTOs that EOP-004-2, if
adopted, requires modification. We find no reason to require NERC to
limit reportable events to those that give third parties time to act to
mitigate the event, or to limit the recipients of such reports to those
that can act to mitigate actual, real-time events. It is unclear that
such events could be readily identified, leading to greater confusion
concerning reporting requirements and a possible loss of information
about those mitigable events. More importantly, as noted above, we do
not agree that FPA section 215 limits the scope of Reliability
Standards to those that directly affect real-time operations, and
therefore do not agree with the underlying basis for Joint ISOs/RTOs'
proposed modification.
    22. Further, based on the one example provided by Joint ISOs/RTOs,
we are not persuaded that the triggering events delineated in
Attachment 1 require clarification. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend that, while
Attachment 1 requires reporting when ``[d]amage or destruction of a
Facility . . . results in actions to avoid a BES emergency,''
reliability coordinators and balancing authorities may take actions to
avoid a BES Emergency without knowing whether the underlying system
conditions resulted from damage or destruction to a facility.
Requirement R2 of EOP-004-2 requires reporting of an event ``within 24
hours of recognition of meeting an event type threshold. . . .'' NERC
explains that the language of Requirement R2 is based on
``recognition'' of an event threshold because ``an entity may not be
immediately aware of destruction or damage to a remote piece of
equipment'' and ``requiring Responsible Entities to constantly monitor
all equipment and property for destruction or damage would be a waste
of resources. . . .'' \23\ We agree that NERC has developed a practical
solution to reporting that, rather than creating ambiguity, provides a
more clear and rational trigger for reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NERC Petition at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Finally, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs' objection that the 24-hour
reporting window is too stringent. As indicated by the Attachment 2
standardized Event Reporting Form, entities are only required to
provide limited, specified information pertaining to an event. No
underlying investigation or analysis is required. If Joint ISOs/RTOs
believe that improvements can be made to EOP-004-2, through clarifying
language or other modifications as the industry gains experience with
EOP-004-2's revised reporting requirements, they can seek to do so
through NERC's standard development process.
    24. Accordingly, we approve Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 pursuant
to FPA section 215(d)(2), as we find that it is just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We
also approve the associated violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, NERC's requested effective date for EOP-004-2, and the
retirement of existing Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a.

V. Information Collection Statement

    25. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency action.\24\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of this Order will not be penalized
for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The Commission will submit these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This order is effective immediately;
however, the revised information collection requirements will not be
effective or enforceable until OMB approves the information collection
changes described in this order. Comments are solicited within 60 days
of the date this order is published in the Federal Register on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's
burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Submit
comments following the Commission's

submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp
and reference Docket No. RD13-3.
    27. Rather than creating entirely new obligations to report a
system disturbance, the revised Reliability Standard, EOP-004-2,
primarily clarifies the thresholds that can trigger a reporting
obligation, and reduces the reporting burden for certain individual
respondents due to the use of a simplified form in Attachment 2.
However, the revised Reliability Standard would increase the reporting
burden for some individual entities, because it would apply for the
first time to transmission owners and generator owners. We do not
anticipate a large increase in the number of respondents because the
existing Reliability Standard applies to transmission operators and
generator operators, which includes the majority of the entities
registered as transmission owners and generator owners.
    28. Burden Estimate: Our estimate below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of March 2013.
According to the registry, there are 7 transmission owners that are not
also transmission operators, 128 generator owners that are not also
generator operators, and 101 distribution providers that are not also
registered as another functional entity covered by the current event
reporting standards. Thus, we estimate that a total of 236 entities may
be subject to the event reporting requirements of EOP-004-2 for the
first time.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Although distribution providers are included as responsible
entities under the revised Reliability Standard, their reporting
obligations will be de minimis, as explained in the Guidelines and
Technical Basis attached to the revised standard. See NERC Petition,
Ex. B at 13. For purposes of this analysis, however, we included
distribution providers as part of the assumed number of reports per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The number of annual reports required could vary widely based
on the individual entity and the extent of its facilities. The estimate
below is based on an assumption that, on average, 25 percent of the
entities covered by EOP-004-2 will have one reportable event per year.
As demonstrated below, the primary increase in cost associated with the
revised standard is expected in Year 1, when newly covered entities
must develop an operating plan for reporting. In Years 2 and 3, an
overall reduction in reporting and recordkeeping burden is expected,
due to the simplified reporting form:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Year 1 costs include implementation costs for entities that
must comply with the standard for the first time, plus the cost for
entities that are currently subject to NERC event reporting
requirements to review and make changes to their existing plans. The
Year 1 total also includes the savings from the reduction in
reporting time due to the new Event Reporting Form.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Number of                        Average
       Type of  respondent              Reporting/         Number of     responses per   Total number    burden hours   Estimated total  Estimated total
                                   recordkeeping req't    respondents     respondent     of responses    per response    annual burden     annual cost
                                   ...................             (A)             (B)     (A) x (B) =             (D)              (C) x (D)(see below)
                                                                                (C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Entities (GO, TO, DP)........  Developing                      236               1             236               8            1888      $113,280.00
                                    Operating Plan (Yr
                                    1 Only).
                                   Reporting Event (Yr              59               1              59            0.17           10.03           601.80
                                    1, 2, and 3).
Entities Subject to Existing       Conforming                     1164               1            1164               2            2328       139,680.00
 Reporting Requirements.            Operating Plan to
                                    New Thresholds (Yr
                                    1 Only).
                                   Reporting Event                 291               1             291           -0.33          -96.03        (5,761.80)
                                    (using new form)
                                    (Yrs 1, 2, and 3).
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for Year 1 \26\........  ...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           4,130          247,800
    Total for each of Years 2 & 3  ...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             (81)          (5,160)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated breakdown of annual cost is as follows:
 Year 1
    [cir] New Entities, Development of Operating Plan: 236 entities * 1
response/entity * (8 hours/response * $60/hour \27\) = $113,280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For the burden categories above, the estimated hourly
loaded cost (salary plus benefits) for an engineer was assumed to be
$60/hour, based on salaries as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). Loaded
costs are BLS rates divided by 0.703 and rounded to the nearest
dollar (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] New Entities, Event Reporting: 59 entities * 1 response/
entity * (.17 hours/response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
    [cir] Current Responsible Entities, Conforming Operating Plan: 1164
entities * 1 response/entity * (2 hours/response * $60/hour) =
$139,680.
    [cir] Current Responsible Entities, Event Reporting Using New Event
Reporting Form: 291 entities * 1 response/entity * [(.17 hours/response
- .5 hours/response) \28\ * $60/hour] = ($5,761.80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ It is estimated that the average time to complete the
required event report under Reliability Standard EOP-004-1 is 30
minutes, versus an estimated 10 minutes under the proposed
Reliability Standard, EOP-004-2.

     Year 2 and ongoing
    [cir] New Entities, Using ``Event Reporting Form'': 59 entities * 1
response/entity * (.17 hours/response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
    [cir] Old Entities, Using ``Event Reporting Form'': 291 entities *
1 response/entity * [(.17 hours/response - .5 hours/response) * $60/
hour] = ($5,761.80).

    Title: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System.
    Action: Proposed collection of information.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0244.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard EOP-004-2
satisfies certain prior directives of the Commission, including a
requirement to provide further guidance and specificity about
reportable incidents of sabotage. The revised Reliability Standard
requires reporting of specified system disturbances and potential
events of sabotage in a timely manner, thereby allowing NERC as the
Electric Reliability Organization, governmental authorities and
relevant electric industry entities the opportunity to react. The
revised standard accordingly enhances reliability in real-time through
the opportunity to mitigate the impact of a disturbance, and in the
future through investigation, analysis, and dissemination of lessons
learned.
    30. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone: (202)
502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].

VI. Effective Date

    31. This order will become effective upon issuance.
    The Commission orders:
    (A) Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 is hereby approved as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory, and in the public interest.
    (B) NERC's proposed Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity
Levels and implementation plan for Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 are
hereby approved, including the retirement of existing Reliability
Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a when EOP-004-2 goes into effect.

    Issued: June 20, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16805 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


----- Forwarded by Bryant Crowe/DC/USEPA/US on 01/02/2008 01:25 PM -----

Bryant Crowe/DC/USEPA/US

07/10/2007 12:25 PM

To

Khalid Akkari<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Cynthia Giles-Parker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Barbara Madden/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tony Kish/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonathan Fleuchaus/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Notification: Boscalid --NRDC objections

Hi Khalid,

We spoke of this briefly, earlier today, the e-Docket HQ-OPP-2005-0145 associated with the action: Boscalid; Pesticide Petition to Establish Tolerances for Leafy Vegetables, contains objections from NRDC.  During the comment period on these objections, the Agency received a comment from NRDC  (attached below as EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145-0018[1].1 pdf, dated May 21, 2007) in which NRDC expands on the issues raised in its objections.

This email serves as a notification to BASF of the NRDC comments.  If BASF chooses to respond to NRDC's comments, BASF should submit such response to EPA within 30 days of this email.  Your response may be submitted via email, so long as the above listed persons are included as recipients.  Should you have further questions, you may notify me by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email.

Thanks,

Bryant Crowe


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18895-18899]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8182]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325; FRL-8868-6]

Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
hexythiazox in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed;
corn, sweet, forage; bean, dried; and bean, succulent. Gowan Company
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 6, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 6, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325. 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., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available 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 Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505P), 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?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's eCFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access
the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test
Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 6, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket 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>.

II. Summary of Petitioned For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 2009 (74 FR 41898) (FRL-8426-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F7549) by Gowan Company, 370 South Main Street, Yuma, AZ, 85364. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide hexythiazox, trans-5-(4-
chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide and
its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-
thiazolidine moiety (expressed as parts per million of the parent
compound), in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at
0.1 parts per million (ppm); corn, sweet, forage at 3 ppm; bean, dried
at 0.4 ppm; and bean, succulent at 0.4 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance levels for corn, sweet, forage; and
bean, succulent to 4 ppm and 0.3 ppm, respectively. The

reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for hexythiazox including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with hexythiazox
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. It produces mild eye irritation, is not
a dermal irritant, and is negative for dermal sensitization.
Hexythiazox is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. The
toxicology database for hexythiazox provides no indication of increased
susceptibility in rats or rabbits from in utero and postnatal exposure
to hexythiazox. The database does not show any evidence of treatment-
related effects on the nervous system or the immune system. Hexythiazox
is classified as ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans''. EPA has
determined that a non-quantitative risk assessment approach (i.e.,
nonlinear, reference dose (RfD) approach) was appropriate and
protective of all chronic effects including potential carcinogenicity
of hexythiazox.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by hexythiazox as well as the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support New Uses on Sweet Corn, Dry Beans and Succulent
Beans,'' page 24 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for hexythiazox used for
human risk assessment can be found in the final rule published in the
Federal Register of March 17, 2010 (Vol. 75 FR 12691) (FRL-8813-7), and
at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Hexythiazox. Human Health
Risk Assessment to Support New Uses on Sweet Corn, Dry Beans and
Succulent Beans,'' page 11 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hexythiazox, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40 CFR
180.448. EPA assessed dietary exposures from hexythiazox in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for hexythiazox; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level
residues, assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and incorporated DEEM
default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data in the Federal Register
of March 17, 2010 (Vol. 75 FR 12691) (FRL-8813-7), EPA has concluded
that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk
to hexythiazox. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure
estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for hexythiazox. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level

water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of hexythiazox. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC)
of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for non-cancer and cancer
assessments is estimated to be 4.5 ppb for surface water. Since surface
water residue values greatly exceed groundwater EDWCs, surface water
residues were used in the dietary risk assessment.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Hexythiazox is not currently registered for any specific use
patterns that would result in residential exposure. However, the
following uses that could result in residential exposures are pending
registration in the near future and are included in this risk
assessment: Turf, ornamental landscape plantings, ornamental plants,
trees and vines in nurseries, residential fruit trees, nut trees,
caneberries, and orchids.
    Both adults and children may be exposed to hexythiazox residues
from contact with treated lawns or treated plants. The exposure and
risk assessment included risks to adult handlers from inhalation
exposures. The exposure assessment for children included risks from
incidental oral exposure resulting from transfer of residues from the
hands or objects to the mouth, and from incidental ingestion of soil.
Details of the residential exposure and risk assessment are contained
in the final rule published in the Federal Register of July 14, 2010
(75 FR 40741), and at http://www.regulations.gov in document
``Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support New Uses on
Sweet Corn, Dry Beans, and Succulent Beans,'' page 16 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found hexythiazox to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and hexythiazox does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
hexythiazox does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology data base indicates no increased susceptibility of rats or
rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is incomplete under the
new 40 CFR part 158 data requirements for conventional pesticides,
which requires certain generic testing, including acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies and an immunotoxicity study. However, the
toxicology database does not show any evidence of treatment-related
effects on the nervous system or the immune system. The overall weight
of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target either
system. Although acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and an
immunotoxicity study are required as a part of new data requirements in
the 40 CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide registrations, the
Agency does not believe that conducting these studies will result in a
lower POD than any currently used for risk assessment, and therefore, a
database uncertainty factor (UFDB) is not needed to account
for the lack of these studies.
    ii. There is no indication that hexythiazox is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that hexythiazox results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The dietary risk assessment is
highly conservative and not expected to underestimate risk. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by hexythiazox.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short, intermediate, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from

a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, hexythiazox is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 51% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
hexythiazox is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    There are potential short-term exposures from the pending
residential uses for hexythiazox. The Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 15,000 for adults
and 1,900 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox
is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    There are potential intermediate-term exposures from the pending
residential uses for hexythiazox. The Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
intermediate-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 15,000 for adults and 2,200 for children. Because
EPA's level of concern for Hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iii, EPA concluded that regulation based on the chronic
reference dose will be protective for both chronic and carcinogenic
risks. As noted in this unit there are no chronic risks of concern.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to hexythiazox residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography method with UV detection (HPLC/UV)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    A Codex MRL for common beans (pods and/or immature seeds) is
currently established at 0.5 ppm. It is not possible to harmonize the
U.S. tolerance with the Codex MRL since the Codex MRL is for parent
compound only and the U.S. expression includes metabolites of concern.
There are no Canadian or Mexican MRLs for beans and there is no Codex,
Canadian or Mexican MRL for sweet corn commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned for Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance levels for corn, sweet, forage; and
bean, succulent to 4 ppm and 0.3 ppm, respectively. The tolerance
spreadsheet in the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Based on Field Trial Data was used to determine appropriate tolerance
levels for sweet corn forage, dried beans and succulent beans. The
tolerance spreadsheet was not used for sweet corn kernel plus cob with
husk removed (K+CWHR) because >65% of the residues were


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68052-68055]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0643; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-190-AD;
Amendment 39-17241; AD 2012-22-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100
airplanes. That AD currently requires performing a detailed visual
inspection for cracks of the pistons on the main landing gear (MLG),
and replacing the affected pistons if necessary. This new AD also
requires modifying the MLG by installing a piston containing a certain
part number, and revising the airplane maintenance program. This AD was
prompted by a new modification developed to safeguard the integrity of
the MLG assembly and improve surface protection of the affected area of
the MLG piston. We are issuing this AD to prevent MLG failure, possibly
resulting in loss of control of the airplane during the landing roll-
out.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 20, 2012.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 20,
2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March
22, 2011 (76 FR 8618, February 15, 2011).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2012 (77 FR
37337), and proposed to supersede AD 2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601 (76
FR 8618, February 15, 2011). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) states:

    During a normal walk around check on a F28 Mark 0100 aeroplane,
a large crack was discovered in the lower portion of the right (RH)
MLG piston. The affected MLG unit had accumulated 7,909 flight
cycles (FC) at the time of detection. The piston was sent to
Goodrich, the landing gear manufacturer, for detailed investigation,
which revealed that the crack had been initiated by corrosion pits.
The extent of the corrosion indicates that the initial crack existed
for a substantial period before a high loading event caused the
crack to grow further by ductile overload.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG
failure during the landing roll-out, possibly resulting in damage to
the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA [European
Aviation Safety Agency] issued AD 2009-0221 [which corresponds with
FAA AD 2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601 (76 FR 8618, February 15,
2011)] to require a one-time detailed visual inspection of the MLG
pistons, the replacement of any MLG pistons on which cracks are
detected, and the reporting of all findings to the aeroplane TC
[type certificate] holder. No cracks were reported as a result of
this inspection.
    Subsequently, a repetitive inspection was introduced in the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (Fokker Services report SE-623
Issue 8) in Appendix 1 of the Maintenance Review Board (MRB)
document to safeguard the integrity of the MLG assembly, pending the
accomplishment of a terminating action.
    Goodrich issued Service Bulletin (SB) 41000-32-29 to introduce
an improved surface protection (nickel plate) of the affected area
of the MLG piston P/N [part number] 41141-3 and re-identification as
P/N 41141-5, which is considered as a terminating action for the
repetitive inspections.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive visual inspections of the P/N 41141-3 MLG piston for
cracks and, depending on findings, replacement or modification of
the MLG piston. This [EASA] AD also requires modification of the
affected MLG by installing a piston P/N 41141-5.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Change Made to This AD

    We have revised paragraphs (k), (l), and (n), of this final rule to
clarify the document citation of Fokker Report SE-623 to meet the
Office of Federal Register's guidelines for materials incorporated by
reference. There is no change to the requirements specified in those
paragraphs.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 37337, June 21,
2012) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed--except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 37337, June 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 37337, June 21, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 2 products of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601
(76 FR 8618, February 15, 2011), and retained in this AD take about 3
work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required
actions is $255 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 24 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $4,080, or $2,040 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket

contains the NPRM (77 FR 37337, June 21, 2012), the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601 (76 FR 8618, February 15, 2011), and
adding the following new AD:

2012-22-05 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-17241. Docket No. FAA-
2012-0643; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-190-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 20,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601 (76 FR
8618, February 15, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial
numbers, equipped with Goodrich (formerly Menasco, Colt Industries)
main landing gear (MLG) units, part numbers (P/N) 41050-7, 41050-8,
41050-9, 41050-10, 41050-11, 41050-12, 41050-13, 41050-14, 41050-15,
41050-16, 41060-1, 41060-2, 41060-3, 41060-4, 41060-5, or 41060-6.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance
with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired
in the areas addressed by these actions, the operator may not be
able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. The request should include
a description of changes to the required inspections that will
ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a new modification developed to
safeguard the integrity of the MLG assembly and improve surface
protection of the affected area of the MLG piston. We are issuing
this AD to prevent MLG failure, possibly resulting in loss of
control of the airplane during the landing roll-out.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Initial Inspection

    This paragraph restates the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of AD 2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601 (76 FR 8618,
February 15, 2011). Within 30 days after March 22, 2011 (the
effective date of AD 2011-04-01), do a detailed visual inspection
for cracks of the MLG pistons, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-158, dated October
2, 2009.

(h) Retained Replacement

    This paragraph restates the replacement required by paragraph
(h) of AD 2011-04-01, Amendment 39-16601 (76 FR 8618, February 15,
2011). If any cracked MLG piston is found during the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace
the affected piston with a serviceable part, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-
158, dated October 2, 2009.

(i) New Modification

    Within 120 months, or during a scheduled overhaul of the MLG,
whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Modify
the MLG by installing a piston containing P/N 41141-5, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-32-161, dated April 7, 2011. Re-installation of a MLG piston
that has been modified and re-identified as P/N 41141-5, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service
Bulletin 41000-32-29, dated November 10, 2010, is an optional method
of compliance for the requirements specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD. It is acceptable to operate an airplane with one MLG having
a P/N 41141-5 piston installed, and the other MLG having a P/N
41141-3 piston installed, provided all MLG P/N 41141-3 are replaced
within the compliance times specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(j) New Parts Installation Prohibition

    After 120 months after the effective date of this AD: No person
may install a MLG piston, P/N 41141-3, or a MLG unit equipped with a
MLG piston P/N 41141-3, on any airplane.

(k) New Revision of the Airplane Maintenance Program

    Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
airplane maintenance program by incorporating Task 321100-01-16,
Inspection of MLG Piston, and associated thresholds and intervals
described in Fokker Report, SE-623, Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness
Limitation Items and Safe Life Items, Issue 8, dated December 20,
2010. The initial compliance time for Task 321100-01-16 is within 2
months after the effective date of this AD.

(l) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (k) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used other than those specified in Fokker Report, SE-623, Fokker
70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Items, Issue 8,
dated December 20, 2010, unless the actions and intervals are
approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(n) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2011-0159, dated August 26, 2011, and the service
information specified in paragraphs (n)(1)through (n)(4) of this AD,
for related information.
    (1) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-158, dated October 2,
2009.
    (2) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-161, dated April 7, 2011.

    (3) Fokker Report, SE-623, Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness
Limitation Items and Safe Life Items, Issue 8, dated December 20,
2010.
    (4) Goodrich Service Bulletin 41000-32-29, dated November 10,
2010.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 20, 2012.
    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-161, dated April 7, 2011.
    (ii) Fokker Report, SE-623, Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness
Limitation Items and Safe Life Items, Issue 8, dated December 20,
2010.
    (iii) Goodrich Service Bulletin 41000-32-29, dated November 10,
2010.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 8618, February 15, 2011).
    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-158, dated October 2,
2009.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150
AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax
+31 (0)252-627-211; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. For Goodrich Corporation service information
identified in this AD, contact Goodrich, 1400 South Service Road,
West Oakville, L6L 5Y7, Ontario, Canada, telephone +1-905-827-7777;
fax +1-905-825-1583; Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    (6) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 24, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26781 Filed 11-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P