[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 30737]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1975-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1975-DR), dated May 2, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 16, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 2, 2011.

    Cross, Greene, Independence, Jackson, Lawrence, Lonoke,
Mississippi, Monroe, Prairie, and Woodruff Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    Baxter, Boone, Calhoun, Chicot, Clark, Cleburne, Cleveland,
Crittenden, Cross, Dallas, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Howard,
Independence, Izard, Johnson, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Nevada,
Newton, Perry, Pike, Polk, Searcy, Sharp, Van Buren, White, and Yell
Counties for Public Assistance (Categories A-G), including direct
Federal Assistance.
    Clay, Lincoln, Randolph, and Saline Counties for Public
Assistance [Categories A-G], including direct Federal Assistance,
(already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for
emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct
Federal assistance).

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-13030 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 13874]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05822]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (223) Internet
Protocol Suite (IPS)

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

ACTION: Notice of Eighteenth RTCA Special Committee 223 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Eighteenth RTCA Special Committee 223 Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 26-28, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 223. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday-Thursday, April 26-28, 2016

1. Welcome, Introductions, Administrative Remarks
2. Review RTCA Process Presentation
3. Review of the updated SC-223 Terms of Reference
4. Review of current State of Industry Standards
    a. ICAO WG-I
    b. AEEC IPS Sub Committee
5. Current State of Industry Activities
    a. SESAR Programs
    b. ESA IRIS Precursor
    c. Other
6. Develop Work Plan for SC-223
    a. Dependencies on other RTCA Special Committees
    b. Safety/Hazard Assessment Need
    c. Prioritized Action Plan
    d. Special Committee Structure
7. IPS Technical Discussions
8. Any Other Topics of Interest
9. Plans for Next Meetings

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-05822 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57209-57215]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0424-200746(a); FRL-8478-3]

Approval of Implementation Plans of South Carolina: Clean Air
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the South Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on August 14, 2007. These revisions
incorporate provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently
revised on April 28, 2006 and December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) concerning sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX) annual, and NOX ozone
season emissions for the State of South Carolina, promulgated on April
28, 2006 and subsequently revised December 13, 2006. EPA is not making
any changes to the CAIR FIPs, but is amending the

appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note
this approval.
    On September 19, 2007, South Carolina requested that EPA only act
on a portion of the August 14, 2007, submittal as an abbreviated SIP.
Consequently, EPA is approving the abbreviated SIP revisions that
address the methodology to be used to allocate annual and ozone season
NOX allowances under the CAIR FIPs as well as opt-in
provisions for the SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs. South Carolina also
requested that EPA approve compliance supplement pool (CSP) provisions
for the NOX annual trading program.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective December 10, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 8,
2007. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0424, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0424'', Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0424.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online 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 through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public 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 and any form of encryption and should be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's approval, please contact Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?
V. Analysis of South Carolina's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. Applicability Provisions for Non-Electric Generating Units
(EGUs) NOX SIP Call Sources
    D. NOX Allowance Allocations
    E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the CSP
    F. Individual Opt-In Units
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

CAIR SIP Approval

    EPA is approving revisions to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on
August 14, 2007, and revised on September 19, 2007, that would modify
the application of certain provisions of the CAIR FIPs concerning
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
emissions. (As discussed below, this less comprehensive CAIR SIP is
termed an abbreviated SIP.) South Carolina is subject to the CAIR FIPs
that implement the CAIR requirements by requiring certain EGUs to
participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season cap-and-trade
programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating
NOX allowances for the NOX annual and
NOX ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIPs provide
that this methodology, if approved by EPA, will be used to allocate
NOX allowances to sources in South Carolina, instead of the
Federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIP. The SIP
revision also provides a methodology for allocating the compliance
supplement pool in the CAIR NOX annual trading program, and
allows for individual units not otherwise subject to the CAIR trading
programs to opt into such trading programs. Specifically, EPA is
approving South Carolina's SIP submission that includes the allocation
methodologies for the CAIR NOX annual and NOX
ozone season trading programs and CAIR FIP opt-in provisions. The SIP
revision also addresses South Carolina's CSP provisions in the CAIR
NOX annual trading program. Consistent with the

flexibility provided in the FIPs, these provisions will also be used to
replace or supplement, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions in
the CAIR FIPs for South Carolina. EPA is not making any changes to the
CAIR FIPs, but is amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP
trading rules simply to note this approval.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this
rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia
contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
fine particulates (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind
States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required
those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures
that reduce emissions of SO2, which is a precursor to
PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX, which is a precursor
to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5 nonattainment,
CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e.,
budgets) for SO2 and annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements for NOX. Similarly, for jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets
State-wide emission reduction requirements for NOX for the
ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may
implement these emission budgets by participating in the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control
measures.
    CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective
May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3
years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a
FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA
section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are
made and must do so within two years, unless a SIP revision correcting
the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the
State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require certain EGUs to participate
in the EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone-season model trading programs, as appropriate. The
CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements
as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs.
The integration of the CAIR FIP and SIP trading programs means that
these trading programs will work together to create effectively a
single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season) in all States
covered by a CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The
CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that,
if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement the
corresponding CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the state), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published two more CAIR-related final rules
that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States
subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA's final
decisions on reconsideration of five issues without making any
substantive changes to the CAIR requirements.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or, (2) adopting other control measures of the State's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable State SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules
that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if
they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

    States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that
most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an
option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP
revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model
CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however,
the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these
abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction
with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs
(e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).
    A State submitting an abbreviated SIP revision, may submit limited
SIP revisions to tailor the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs to the
State submitting the revision. Specifically, an abbreviated SIP
revision may establish certain applicability and allowance allocation
provisions that, the CAIR FIPs provide, will be used instead of or in
conjunction with the corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIP rules in
that State. Specifically, the abbreviated SIP revisions may:
    1. Include NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not
EGUs under CAIR

in the CAIR FIP NOX ozone season trading program;
    2. Provide for allocation of NOX annual or ozone season
allowances by the State, rather than the Administrator of the EPA or
the Administrator's duly authorized representative (Administrator), and
using a methodology chosen by the State;
    3. Provide for allocation of NOX annual allowances from
the CSP by the State, rather than by the Administrator, and using the
State's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or
    4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt
individually into the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs under the opt-in
provisions in the CAIR FIP rules.

With approval of an abbreviated SIP revision, the CAIR FIPs remain in
place, as tailored to sources in the State by the approved SIP
revisions.
    Abbreviated SIP revisions can be submitted in lieu of, or as part
of, CAIR full SIP revisions. States may want to designate part of their
full SIP as an abbreviated SIP for EPA to act on first when the timing
of the State's submission might not provide EPA with sufficient time to
approve the full SIP prior to the deadline for recording NOX
allocations. This will help ensure that the elements of the trading
programs where flexibility is allowed are implemented according to the
State's decisions. Submission of an abbreviated SIP revision does not
preclude future submission of a CAIR full SIP revision. In this case,
the September 19, 2007, submittal from South Carolina has been
submitted as an abbreviated SIP revision.

V. Analysis of South Carolina's CAIR SIP Submittal

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/mmBtu), for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2, to obtain
regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NOX annual
and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat
input data adjusted by fuel factors.
    The CAIR State SO2 budgets were derived by discounting
the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations
under the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each
allowance allocated under the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase
1 of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.50 ton of SO2
emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program
allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and
thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR
trading program.
    The CAIR FIPs established the budgets for South Carolina as 32,662
tons for NOX annual emissions for 2009-2014 and 27,219 tons
for NOX annual emissions for 2015 and thereafter, 15,249
tons for NOX ozone season emissions for 2009-2014 and 12,707
tons for NOX ozone season emissions for 2015 and thereafter,
and 57,271 tons for SO2 emissions for 2009-2014 and 40,089
tons for SO2 emissions for 2015 and thereafter. South
Carolina's SIP revision, being approved in this action, does not affect
these budgets, which are total amounts of allowances available for
allocation for each year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs under the CAIR FIPs. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision
only affects allocations of allowances under the established budgets.

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season FIPs both largely
mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model trading rule
in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the
NOX annual and ozone-season FIPs are similar, there are some
differences. For example, the NOX annual FIP (but not the
NOX ozone season FIP) provides for a CSP, which is discussed
below and under which allowances may be awarded for early reductions of
NOX annual emissions. As a further example, the
NOX ozone season FIP reflects the fact that the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program replaces the NOX
SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated
with the NOX SIP Call program. The NOX ozone
season FIP provides incentives for early emissions reductions by
allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call allowances to be used
for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone-season trading program.
In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program and including all their
NOX SIP Call trading sources in that program.
    The provisions of the CAIR SO2 FIP are also similar to
the provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season FIPs.
However, the SO2 FIP is coordinated with the ongoing Acid
Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The
SO2 FIP uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with
each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of
emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter
authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances
allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR
SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance
authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely
transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources
covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.
    EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading
programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually
identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account
for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    South Carolina is subject to the CAIR FIPs for ozone and
PM2.5 and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season which apply to
sources in South Carolina. Consistent with the flexibility they give to
States, the CAIR FIPs provide that States may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions that will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain
provisions of the CAIR FIP trading programs. The August 14, 2007,
submission of South Carolina is such an abbreviated SIP revision.

C. Applicability Provisions for Non-Electric Generating Units (EGU)
NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR FIP trading programs apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990, or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatt electrical (MWe) producing
electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the State's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA
advises States exercising this option to use provisions for
applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40
CFR 96.304 and add the applicability provisions in the State's
NOX SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability
provisions in 40 CFR

96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program all units required to be in the State's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR
96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NOX ozone season program
must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as
well as any small EGUs (i.e., units serving a generator with a
nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), that the State currently
requires to be in the NOX SIP Call trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIPs,
in the abbreviated SIP revision being approved in today's action, South
Carolina has not chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the
CAIR NOX ozone season trading program to include all non-
EGUs in the State's NOX SIP Call trading program. EPA notes
that South Carolina has indicated that it intends to submit
subsequently a full SIP revision that expands the applicability
provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program in
this manner.

D. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIPs, NOX annual
and ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have operated
for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year period that
are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6
for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the
CAIR FIPs also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without
five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units'
prior year emissions.
    The CAIR FIPs provide States the flexibility to establish a
different NOX allowance allocation methodology that will be
used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain
requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units'
allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount
of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting
alternative NOX allowance allocation methodologies, States
have flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIPs,
South Carolina has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual FIP concerning the allocation of NOX
annual allowances with its own methodology. South Carolina has chosen
to distribute NOX annual allowances by adopting, with
certain revisions, the CAIR NOX annual trading program model
rule at 40 CFR 96.141 and 96.142.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the CAIR FIPs,
South Carolina has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with
their own methodology. South Carolina has chosen to distribute
NOX ozone season allowances by adopting, with certain
revisions, the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program model
rule at 40 CFR 96.341 and 96.342.

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the Compliance
Supplement Pool

    The CSP provides an incentive for early reductions in
NOX annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR
NOX annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR
region, and a State's share of the CSP is based upon the State's share
of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. States may distribute
CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to
sources that make NOX reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond
what is required by any applicable State or Federal emission
limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a
demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for
implementing emission controls.
    The CAIR NOX annual FIP establishes specific
methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an
allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate
CSP allowances to sources in those States.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIP, South
Carolina has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR NOX
annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from the CSP. South
Carolina has chosen to distribute CSP allowances by adopting, with
certain revisions, the CAIR NOX annual CSP provisions in the
model rule at 40 CFR 96.143.

F. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers,
combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices)
that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program
to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading
program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading
programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a
unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet
monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part
75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading
program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a
CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated
allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the
CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two
methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one
methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second
methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the
owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The
rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in
provisions that are essentially the same as those in the respective
CAIR SIP model rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become
effective in a State only if the State's abbreviated SIP revision
adopts the opt-in provisions. The State may adopt the opt-in provisions
entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation
methodologies. The State also has the option of not adopting any opt-in
provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for
the CAIR FIPs trading program to be implemented in the State without
the ability for units to opt into the program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, South
Carolina has chosen to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to
participate in the CAIR NOX annual trading program. The
South Carolina rule allows for both of the opt-in allocation methods as
specified in 40 CFR part 97 Subpart II of the CAIR NOX
annual trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, South
Carolina has chosen to permit non-EGUs meeting certain requirements to
participate in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program.
The South Carolina rule allows for both of the opt-in allocation
methods as specified in 40 CFR part 97 Subpart IIII of the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to States in the FIPs, South
Carolina has chosen to allow certain non-EGUs to opt into the CAIR
SO2 trading program. The South Carolina rule allows for both
of the opt-in allocation methods as

specified in 40 CFR part 97 Subpart III of the CAIR SO2
trading program.

VI. Final Action

    EPA is approving South Carolina's abbreviated CAIR SIP revisions
submitted on September 19, 2007. South Carolina is covered by the CAIR
FIPs, which requires participation in the EPA-administered CAIR FIP
cap-and-trade programs for SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions. Under these abbreviated SIP
revisions and consistent with the flexibility given to States in the
FIPs, South Carolina adopts provisions for allocating allowances under
the CAIR FIP NOX annual and ozone season trading programs.
EPA is approving South Carolina's CAIR NOX annual and ozone
season allocation provisions for units subject to the CAIR trading
programs under the current CAIR FIP NOX annual and ozone
season applicability provisions. In addition, South Carolina adopts in
the abbreviated SIP revision provisions that establish a methodology
for allocating allowances in the CSP and allow for individual non-EGUs
to opt into the CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season cap-and-trade programs. EPA is approving
South Carolina's allowing for opt-in units and therefore the
application of the opt-in provisions in these CAIR FIP trading programs
to units in South Carolina.
    As provided for in the CAIR FIPs, these provisions in the
abbreviated SIP revision will replace or supplement the corresponding
provisions of the CAIR FIPs in South Carolina. The abbreviated SIP
revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and
(ee), with regard to NOX annual and NOX ozone
season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(r), with regard to SO2
emissions. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIPs, but is
amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules
simply to note this approval.
    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective December 10, 2007
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
November 8, 2007.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on December 10, 2007 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 10, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: September 26, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.2120, paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for
Regulation 62.96 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * * *
    (c) * * *

                              Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  State         EPA
           State citation                  Title/subject        effective     approval       Federal Register
                                                                   date         date              notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regulation No. 62.96................  Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)        8/14/07     10/09/07  [Insert first page of
                                       and Sulfur Dioxide                                 publication].
                                       (SO2) Budget Trading
                                       Program General
                                       Provisions.

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

* * * * *

PART 97--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et
seq.

0
4. Appendix A to Subpart EE is amended by adding in alphabetical order
the entry ``South Carolina'' under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as
follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

    1. * * *
    South Carolina
    2. * * *
    South Carolina
* * * * *

0
5. Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97 is amended by adding in
alphabetical order the entry ``South Carolina'' under paragraphs 1. and
2. to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart II of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NOX Opt-In
Units

    1. * * *
    South Carolina
    2. * * *
    South Carolina
* * * * *

0
6. Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 97 is amended by adding in
alphabetical order the entry ``South Carolina'' under paragraphs 1. and
2. to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart III of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR SO2 Opt-In
Units

    1. * * *
    South Carolina
    2. * * *
    South Carolina
* * * * *

0
7. Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97 is amended by adding in
alphabetical order the entry ``South Carolina'' under the introductory
text to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

* * * * *
    South Carolina
* * * * *

0
8. Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 97 is amended by adding in
alphabetical order the entry ``South Carolina'' under paragraphs 1. and
2. to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart IIII of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning CAIR NOX Ozone
Season Opt-In Units

    1. * * *
    South Carolina
    2. * * *
    South Carolina
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E7-19646 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53614-53615]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)
has requested an exemption for one commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
driver, Philipp Kehm, from the Federal requirement to hold a commercial
driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. This engineer holds
a valid German CDL and needs to test-drive Daimler vehicles on U.S.
roads to better understand product requirements for these systems in
``real world'' environments, and verify results. Daimler believes the
requirements for a German CDL ensure that holders of the license will
likely achieve a level of safety equal to or greater than that of
drivers who hold a U.S. State-issued CDL.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2012-0032 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time and in the box
labeled ``SEARCH for'' enter FMCSA-2012-0032 and click on the tab
labeled ``SEARCH.''
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for granting or denying the exemption, and,
if granted, the specific person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which
exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective period of
the exemption (up to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of
the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
    Since 2012, FMCSA has granted five Daimler drivers similar
exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626);
August 29, 2014 (79 FR 516910); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511)]. Each of
these drivers held a valid German commercial license but lacked the
U.S. residency required to obtain a CDL. FMCSA has concluded that the
process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to or
as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures that these
drivers will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.

Request for Exemption

    Daimler has applied for an exemption for one of its engineers from
49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers
operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. This driver,
Philipp Kehm, holds a valid German commercial license but is unable to
obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States due to residency requirements. A
copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
    The exemption would allow Mr. Kehm to operate CMVs in interstate or
intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet
future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to develop
improved safety and emission technologies. According to Daimler, Mr.
Kehm will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for up to 10
days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State
highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving
will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, on a biannual basis. He
will in all cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is
familiar with the routes to be traveled. Daimler requests that the
exemption cover a two-year period.
    FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a
German CDL is comparable to the Federal requirements of 49 CFR part 383
and adequately assesses a driver's ability to operate CMVs in the
United States.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on Daimler's application for an exemption from
the CDL requirements of 49 CFR 383.23. The Agency will consider all
comments received by close of business on October 5, 2015. Comments
will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed
under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Issued on: August 28, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-22045 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26057-26061]
[DOCID:fr11my10-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM08-19-002; Order No. 729-A]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Calculation of Available
Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit Margins, Transmission Reliability
Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and Existing Transmission
Commitments and Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System

Issued May 5, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order on clarification.

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

SUMMARY: In this order, the Commission grants several requests for
clarification of Order No. 729, which approved and directed
modification of six Modeling, Data, and Analysis Reliability Standards
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization for the United States. As discussed below, the Commission
clarifies the implementation timeline for these Reliability Standards
as well as certain directed modifications.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective June 10, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan First (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Cory Lankford (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Christopher Young (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris.

Order No. 729-A

Order on Clarification

(Issued May 5, 2010)
    1. In this order, the Commission grants several requests for
clarification of Order No. 729,\1\ which approved and directed
modification of six Modeling, Data, and Analysis (MOD) Reliability
Standards submitted to the Commission for approval by the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) for the United
States.\2\ As discussed below, the Commission clarifies the
implementation timeline for these Reliability Standards as well as
certain directed modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Calculation of
Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit Margins,
Transmission Reliability Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and
Existing Transmission Commitments and Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 729, 129 FERC ]
61,155 (2009).
    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. On November 24, 2009, the Commission issued a Final Rule in this
proceeding that approved the six MOD Reliability Standards submitted to
the Commission by the ERO. The approved Reliability Standards pertain
to methodologies for the consistent and transparent calculation of
available transfer capability or available flowgate capability.
Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA \3\ and section 39.5(f) of our
regulations, the Commission directed the ERO to develop certain
modifications to the MOD Reliability Standards. The Commission also
directed NERC to retire the existing MOD Reliability Standards replaced
by the versions approved in the Final Rule once the new versions became
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On December 23, 2009, American Public Power Association (APPA)
and Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC (Duke), Edison Electric Institute (EEI), ISO New England
(ISO-NE), and NERC filed timely requests for clarification.

II. Discussion

A. Implementation Schedule

    4. In the Final Rule, the Commission directed that the Reliability
Standards become effective according to the schedule proposed by the
ERO.\4\ Thus, the Commission stated that the MOD Reliability Standards
shall become effective on the first calendar quarter that is twelve
months beyond the date that the Reliability Standards are approved by
all applicable regulatory authorities. The Commission found that this
implementation schedule struck a reasonable balance between the need
for timely reform and the needs of transmission service providers and
transmission operators to make adjustments to their calculations of
available transfer capability, capacity benefit margin and transfer
reserve margin. In response to comments on its notice of proposed
rulemaking, the Commission clarified that, under this plan, the
Reliability Standards shall become effective on the first day of the
first quarter occurring 365 days after approval by all applicable
regulatory authorities. Approval by the Commission would be effective
60 days after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal
Register.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 95.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests for Clarification
    5. Several petitioners requested clarification of the
implementation schedule. If the Commission intended approval of the MOD
Reliability Standards to be effective upon their approval of all
regulatory authorities, including the applicable Canadian provinces,
APPA and TAPS, along with ISO-NE, ask the Commission to clarify a
process to keep the Commission and industry informed on the status of
the required regulatory approval process. By contrast, EEI asks the
Commission to clarify that the MOD Reliability Standards will become
effective in the United States no earlier than the first

day of the first quarter occurring 365 days after the Commission
approves the MOD Reliability Standards.
    6. NERC also requests clarification and provides some insight into
its proposed implementation schedule. NERC explains that the term ``all
applicable regulatory authorities,'' as it is used in the MOD
Reliability Standards, includes the Commission and the relevant
regulatory authorities in the Canadian provinces. NERC states that,
when it developed the implementation schedule, all participants
anticipated that the processes for approving the MOD Reliability
Standards in all jurisdictions would result in approvals that occurred
at roughly the same time. However, according to NERC, the processes for
approval of Reliability Standards are in various stages of development
in various jurisdictions. Accordingly, NERC requests that the
Commission clarify that the MOD Reliability Standards shall become
effective within the United States no earlier than the first day of the
first quarter occurring 365 days after the publication of Order No. 729
in the Federal Register.
Commission Determination
    7. The Commission agrees that, without further clarification about
regulatory approvals in the Canadian provinces, the approved
implementation schedule is not determinative as to the effective date
of the MOD Reliability Standards within the United States. Without a
clear process for informing entities of the approval by all appropriate
regulatory authorities, the implementation schedule presents some
compliance risks. NERC has indicated that it would support
implementation of the MOD Reliability Standards within the United
States as of the first day of the first quarter occurring 365 days
after the publication of Order No. 729 in the Federal Register. The
Commission agrees that this implementation schedule is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Commission clarifies that the MOD Reliability
Standards shall become effective within the United States as of the
first day of the first quarter occurring 365 days after the publication
of Order No. 729 in the Federal Register, i.e., January 1, 2011.
    8. Compliance with these MOD Reliability Standards requires an
exchange of information and data among neighboring transmission service
providers. In some instances, for example, a transmission service
provider within the United States may need to exchange information and
data with a neighboring transmission service provider located in a
jurisdiction where the Reliability Standard is not yet enforceable. In
this situation, the transmission service provider within the United
States shall share information with the transmission service provider
located in another jurisdiction pursuant to the requirements of these
MOD Reliability Standards. Nevertheless, the transmission service
providers and transmission operators within the continental United
States who must rely on information and data from utilities located in
another country to comply with these Reliability Standards shall not be
penalized solely for the failure of a utility located in another
jurisdiction to provide such information and data, until such time that
the MOD Reliability Standards become mandatory in that foreign
jurisdiction.
    9. So that the Commission is informed about international approval
of these MOD Reliability Standards, we direct the ERO to file notices
with the Commission when any other applicable regulatory authority
approves any or all of the MOD Reliability Standards approved by the
Commission in Order No. 729. The ERO also must post notice of such
approval on its Web site.

B. Audit Scope

    10. In the Final Rule, the Commission directed the ERO to conduct
an audit to measure compliance with the MOD Reliability Standards. In
response to comments on its notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Commission clarified that these audits are not intended to address the
competitive effects of these MOD Reliability Standards.\6\ The
Commission further stated that the audits should review each component
of available transfer or flowgate capability, including the
transmission service provider's calculation of capacity benefit margin
and transmission reliability margin, for transparency and verifiability
to ensure compliance with the MOD Reliability Standards.\7\ The
Commission explained that such an audit is consistent with Requirement
R3.1 of Reliability Standard MOD-001-1, which requires transmission
service providers to include in their available transfer capability
implementation documents information describing how the selected
methodology (or methodologies) has been implemented. Under Requirement
R3.1, transmission service providers are to provide enough detail for
the Commission and others to validate the results of the calculation
given the same information used by the transmission service provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 106.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Clarification
    11. Duke contends that, although Requirement R3.1 of MOD-001-1 may
be broad enough to permit the ERO to audit capacity benefit margin and
transfer reliability margin calculation to determine if they can be
validated, Reliability Standards MOD-004-1 and MOD-008-1 are not the
source for such authority. Accordingly, Duke asks the Commission to
clarify that the audits of MOD-004-1 and MOD-008-1 are to be limited to
compliance with the explicit requirements of those Reliability
Standards.
Commission Determination
    12. Reliability Standard MOD-001-1 establishes foundational
requirements that oblige entities to select a methodology for
calculating available transfer or flowgate capability and then make the
appropriate calculations. Reliability Standards MOD-004-1 and MOD-008-1
establish the methodologies for calculating capacity benefit margin and
transmission reliability margin, respectively. The NERC Glossary of
Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) defines available
transfer capability as ``Total Transfer Capability less Exiting
Transmission Commitments (including retail customer service), less a
Capacity Benefit Margin, less a Transmission Reliability Margin, plus
Postbacks, plus counterflows.'' \8\ Thus, both capacity benefit margin
and transmission reliability margin are integral components of any
available transfer or flowgate calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NERC Glossary, available at: http://www.nerc.com/docs/
standards/rs/Glossary_2009April20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Under Requirement R3.1 of MOD-001-1, a transmission service
provider must include in its implementation documentation:

    ``[i]nformation describing how the selected methodology (or
methodologies) has been implemented, in such detail that, given the
same information used by the Transmission Service Provider, the
results of the [available transfer capability] or [available
flowgate capability] calculations can be validated.\9\

    \9\ Reliability Standard MOD-001-1, Requirement R3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because capacity benefit margin and transfer reliability margin are
integral components of any available transfer or flowgate capability
calculation, we believe that, for an entity to validate the results of
an available transfer or flowgate capability calculation, the
calculations of capacity benefit margin and transfer reliability margin
must also

be detailed in the implementation document with such detail that they
can be validated. Thus, the Commission clarifies that the calculations
of capacity benefit margin and transfer reliability margin, performed
under MOD-004-1 and MOD-008-1 respectively, are properly audited under
Requirement R3.1 of MOD-001-1.

C. Benchmarking

    14. In the Final Rule, the Commission directed the ERO to develop
benchmarking and updating requirements for the MOD Reliability
Standards to measure modeled available transfer and flowgate capability
values against actual values.\10\ The Commission stated that such
requirements should specify the frequency for benchmarking and updating
the available transfer and flowgate capability values and should
require transmission service providers to update their models after any
incident that substantially alters system conditions, such as
generation outages.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 162.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Clarification
    15. Duke states that, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed the
ERO to modify Reliability Standard MOD-014-0 to include a requirement
for validating models against actual system results. Duke states that
the Commission reinforced this requirement in Order No. 890-A, holding
that the models used by the transmission provider to calculate
available transfer capability, and not actual available transfer
capability values, must be benchmarked. Duke requests that the
Commission clarify that its directive in Order No. 729 to develop
benchmarking and updating requirements is the same as the directives in
Order Nos. 693 and 890-A, and is not intended to require a different
form of benchmarking.
Commission Determination
    16. The Commission clarifies that the directive in Order No. 729 to
develop benchmarking and updating requirements is related to the
directives in Order Nos. 693, 890, and 890-A. In Order No. 693, the
Commission directed modification of Reliability Standard MOD-014-0 to
include a requirement that the models developed under the Reliability
Standard be validated against actual system responses and that the
maximum discrepancy between the model results and the actual system
response should be specified in the Reliability Standard.\12\
Similarly, in Order No. 890, the Commission directed public utilities,
working through NERC, to modify certain MOD Reliability Standards to
incorporate requirements for the periodic review and modification of
certain models.\13\ In Order No. 890-A, the Commission clarified this
directive by stating that the models used by the transmission provider
to calculate available transfer capability, and not actual available
transfer capability values, must be benchmarked.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242, at P 1210 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC
] 61,053 (2007).
    \13\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241, at P 290 (2007), order on reh'g, Order
No. 890-A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009).
    \14\ Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 at P 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The Commission remains concerned about the accuracy of the
models used to calculate available transfer capability. Accordingly, in
Order No. 729, the Commission directed the ERO to develop benchmarking
and updating requirements to measure the results of the available
transfer and flowgate calculations against actual values. The
Commission's directive to develop benchmarking and updating
requirements stems from the same concerns raised in Order Nos. 693,
890, and 890-A. The benchmarking and updating requirements directed in
Order No. 729 are not intended to require a different form of
benchmarking than required under those prior orders.

D. Treatment of Network Resource Designations

    18. In the Final Rule, the Commission found that Reliability
Standards MOD-028-1 and MOD-029-1 failed to address the directive in
Order No. 693 to specify how transmission service providers should
determine which generators should be modeled in service when
calculating available transfer capability.\15\ Specifically, with
regard to MOD-028-1, the Commission noted that Requirement R3.1.3,
which addresses designated network resources, governs the calculation
of total transfer capability, not existing transmission commitments.
The Commission stated that the only information provided as to the
effect of designating and undesignating a network resource on existing
transmission commitments is in Requirement R8, which merely states that
``the firm capacity set aside for Network Integration Transmission
Service'' will be included. Accordingly, the Commission directed the
ERO, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA and section 39.5(f) of
its regulations, to develop a modification to MOD-028-1 and MOD-029-1
to specify that base generation schedules used in the calculation
available transfer capability will reflect the modeling of all
designated network resources and other resources that are committed to
or have the legal obligation to run, as they are expected to run, and
to address the effect on available transfer capability of designating
and undesignating a network resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 171 (citing Order No.
693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 119).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Clarification
    19. Duke contends that the Commission's directive requiring
additional specificity regarding the effect of designating and
undesignating a network resource on existing transmission commitments
is inappropriately focused on modifications to Requirement R8 of MOD-
028-1. Duke states that which requirements need to be amended to
include the desired additional specificity will be dependent on which
components of available transfer capability are impacted by the base
model and network resource designations and undesignations. According
to Duke, the Commission erred in stating that existing transmission
capacity includes firm capacity set aside for network integration
transmission service. According to Duke, within MOD-028-1, the
relationship between capacity set aside for network integration
transmission service and existing transmission commitment is a narrower
concept than the Commission presents in Order No. 729. Accordingly,
Duke recommends that the Commission should not expect Requirement R8 of
MOD-028-1 to be modified as a result of an effort to include the
additional specificity and requests that the Commission clarify that
the added specificity should be included in whichever Requirement(s)
are relevant and appropriate.
Commission Determination
    20. In the Final Rule, the Commission did not intend to direct the
ERO to necessarily develop a modification to Requirement R8 of MOD-028-
1. The ERO may develop a modification to another appropriate
requirement of MOD-028-1 to capture the additional specificity required
regarding the effect

of designating and undesignating a network resource on existing
transmission commitments or, as Duke notes, any other relevant
component of available transmission capacity. Nevertheless, any
modification developed to fulfill this requirement must specify how
transmission providers should model base generation dispatch in a
consistent manner that includes all designated network resources and
other resources that are committed to or have the legal obligation to
run, as they are expected to run.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Updates To Dispatch Model Following Material Changes

    21. In the Final Rule, the Commission determined that, to be
useful, hourly, daily, and monthly available transfer and flowgate
capability values must be calculated and posted in advance of the
relevant time periods.\17\ The Commission found that Requirement R8 of
MOD-001-1 and Requirement R10 of MOD-030-2 require that such posting
will occur far enough in advance to meet this need. Nevertheless, in
light of concerns raised by commenters, the Commission directed the ERO
to develop modifications to MOD-001-1 and MOD-030-2 to clarify that
material changes in system conditions will trigger an update whenever
practical.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 179.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Clarification
    22. Duke states that it agrees that material changes should trigger
an update whenever practical, but admonishes that such a requirement is
too vague to be enforceable, let alone auditable, by the ERO due to
differing interpretations of the phrases ``material changes'' and
``whenever practical.'' Accordingly, Duke requests that the Commission
provide further clarity to the ERO as to the desired modifications.
Commission Determination
    23. The Commission agrees that it could be difficult in some
instances to enforce a requirement that hinges upon such phrases as
``material changes'' and ``whenever practical.'' Nevertheless, we
believe that such modifications would be useful to ensure timely
updates of available transfer or flowgate capability values. If the ERO
is unable to modify the requirements of MOD-001-1 and MOD-030-2 to
incorporate such language in a manner that sets clear criteria or
measures of whether an entity is in compliance with the relevant
Reliability Standard or cannot otherwise identify specific changes in
system conditions that require an update, the ERO must, at a minimum,
include this language in its measures of compliance associated with
those Reliability Standards.

F. Managing the Use of Capacity Benefit Margins

    24. In the Final Rule, the Commission determined that ISOs, RTOs,
and other entities with a wide view of system reliability needs should
be able to provide input into determining the total amount of capacity
benefit margin required to preserve the reliability of the system.\19\
The Commission pointed out, though, that Requirements R1.3 and R7 of
MOD-004-1 already make clear that determination of need for generation
capability import requirement made by a load-serving entity or resource
planner are not final. The Commission added that the third bullet of
both Requirements R5 and R6 explicitly list reserve margin or resource
adequacy requirements established by RTOs and ISOs among the factors to
be considered in establishing capacity benefit margin values for
available transfer capability paths or flowgates used in available
transfer or flowgate capability calculations. To ensure that the
Reliability Standard clearly identifies how the transmission service
provider will manage situations where the requested use of capacity
benefit margin exceeds the capacity benefit margin available, the
Commission directed the ERO to develop a modification to MOD-004-1 to
clarify the term ``manage'' in Requirement R1.3.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Order No. 729, 129 FERC ] 61,155 at P 222.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Clarification
    25. Duke states that it understands the Commission's directive to
require that the manner in which such a situation is managed should be
transparent to all users in the relevant capacity benefit margin
implementation document. Accordingly, Duke asks the Commission to
clarify that it intended to direct the ERO to modify the Reliability
Standard to require that transmission service providers explain in
their capacity benefit margin implementation document their specific
method for managing a situation where the requested use of capacity
benefit margin exceeds the capacity benefit margin available,
recognizing that each transmission service provider may have its own
method.
Commission Determination
    26. In Order Nos. 890 and 693, the Commission emphasized that each
load-serving entity has the right to request that capacity benefit
margin be set aside, and to use transmission capacity set aside for
that purpose, to meet its verifiable generation reliability criteria
requirement.\21\ The Commission is concerned that Reliability Standard
MOD-004-1 could allow a transmission service provider to calculate,
allocate, and use capacity benefit margin in a way that impairs the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Under the Reliability
Standard, the transmission service provider is to ``reflect
consideration'' of studies provided by load-serving entities and
resource planners demonstrating a need for capacity benefit margin and
``manage'' situations where the requested use of capacity benefit
margin exceeds the capacity benefit margin available. Reliability
Standard MOD-004-1 places no bounds on this ``consideration'' and
``management'' and, for example, would permit a transmission service
provider to make decisions regarding the use of capacity benefit margin
based solely on economic considerations notwithstanding a demonstration
of need for capacity benefit margin by a load-serving entity or
resource planner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1080; see
also Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241 at P 259; Order No.
890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 at P 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. These concerns would be diminished if the transmission service
provider's capacity benefit margin implementation document were
sufficiently transparent to allow others to validate the method of
managing capacity benefit margin. Accordingly, the Commission upholds
its decision to direct the ERO to develop a modification that would
clarify the term ``manage'' in Requirement R1.3. The Commission
clarifies, however, that the ERO, through its Reliability Standards
development process, should determine the manner in which this
clarification is made.

III. Information Collection Statement

    28. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
an agency.\22\ The revisions to the information collection requirements
for transmission service providers and transmission operators adopted
in Order No. 729 were approved under OMB Control No. 1902-0244. This
order clarifies these requirements in order to

more clearly state the obligations imposed in Order No. 729, but does
not substantively alter those requirements. OMB approval of this order
is therefore unnecessary. However, the Commission will send a copy of
this order to OMB for informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Document Availability

    29. 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 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    30. 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.
    31. 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 e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
V. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    32. Clarifications adopted in this Final Rule will become effective
June 10, 2010.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11089 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5827-5828]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0102; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 2006 Penman Lightweight GS Cargo Trailers Are Eligible for
Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by NHTSA of a petition for a
decision that model year (MY) 2006 Penman Lightweight GS cargo trailers
that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for
importation into the United States because they have safety features
that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
such standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is March 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and has no
substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused
admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the
motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of
being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive
test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Autostadt West of West Sacramento, California (Registered Importer
R-06-346) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming MY 2006
Penman Lightweight GS cargo trailers are eligible for importation into
the United States, and included, as part of their petition, information
intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified MY 2006 Penman
Lightweight GS cargo trailers conform to some FMVSS and are capable of
being altered to comply with all other standards to which they were not
originally manufactured to conform.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that MY 2006 Penman Lightweight
GS cargo trailers, as originally manufactured, conform to Standard No.
106, Brake Hoses.
    The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S. certified
trailers are capable of being readily altered to meet the following
standards, in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Replacement of noncompliant tail, stop, and rear turn signal
lamps, as well as front and rear side reflectors, with lamps and
reflectors that meet the standard.
    Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims: Inspection of tires and
rims for certification markings, replacement of any noncompliant tires
and rims with parts that meet the standard and installation of the
required tire information placard.
    Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids: Replacement of brake fluid with
compliant brake fluid.
    The petitioner also notes that the vehicle must be fitted with a
certification label in order to meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567,
Certification.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-02673 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 51451]
[DOCID:fr20au10-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7320-040]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process Procedures

August 13, 2010.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process Procedures.
    b. Project No.: 7320-040.
    c. Dated Filed: June 29, 2010.
    d. Submitted By: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.
    e. Name of Project: Chasm Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Salmon River, in Franklin County, New York. No
federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the
project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Steven Murphy, Compliance
Specialist, Brookfield Renewable Power--New York West Operations, 33
West 1st Street South, Fulton, NY, 13069;<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie) filed its request to use
the Traditional Licensing Process Procedures on June 29, 2010. Erie
provided public notice of its request on June 25 and June 27, 2010. In
a letter dated August 12, 2010, the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects approved Erie's request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR part 402; and (b) the New York State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Erie as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Erie filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed
process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6
of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
using the ``eLibrary'' link (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
elibrary.asp). Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 7320. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by June 30,
2013.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20653 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P