[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 503]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30938]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9921-39-Region 5]

Proposed Prospective Purchaser Agreement for the Willow Run
Powertrain Site in Ypsilanti, Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Prospective Purchaser Agreement, notice
is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement concerning a
portion of the Willow Run Powertrain Site in Ypsilanti, Michigan with
the following settling party: Yankee Air Force Incorporated. The
settlement requires the Settling Party to, if necessary, execute and
record a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant; provide access to the
Property and exercise due care with respect to existing contamination.
The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Party
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act with
respect to the Existing Contamination. Existing Contamination is
defined as any Waste Material present or existing on or under the
Property as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement; any
Waste Material that migrated from the Property prior to the Effective
Date; and any Waste Material presently at the Site that migrates onto,
on, under, or from the Property after the Effective Date.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA,
Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl., Chicago,
Illinois 60604.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the EPA, Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl.,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of
Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Comments should reference the Willow Run
Powertrain Site, Ypsilanti, Michigan and EPA Docket No. V-W-15-C-017
and should be addressed to Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional Counsel, EPA,
Office of Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., mail code:
C-14J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional
Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Settling Party proposes to acquire
ownership of a portion of the former General Motors Corporation North
American operation, at 2930 Ecorse Road, Ypsilanti, Michigan. The EPA
identification number for the Site is # MID980587893. The Site is one
of the 89 sites that were placed into an Environmental Response Trust
(the ``Trust'') as a result of the resolution of the 2009 GM
bankruptcy. The Trust is administrated by Revitalizing Auto Communities
Environmental Response.

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Richard Karl,
Director, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-30938 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 24463]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

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

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors
Meeting.

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

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on May 16, 2013, from 12:00
noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any
interested person may call 1-877-820-7831, passcode, 908048 to listen
and participate in this meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: April 12, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-09914 Filed 4-23-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 77 (Friday, April 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21647]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0081]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and Adjacent
Waters; Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a security zone along the Potomac
River and Anacostia River, and adjacent waters at Washington, DC, for
activities associated with the U.S. President's address before a Joint
Session of Congress. The zone will be enforced on April 28, 2021. This
action is necessary to protect government officials, mitigate potential
terrorist acts and incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety
and security immediately before, during, and after this activity.
During the enforcement period, entry into or remaining within the zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 will be enforced from 11:59
a.m. through 11:59 p.m. on April 28, 2021, for the zone identified in
33 CFR 165.508(a)(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
Notice of Enforcement, call or email MST2 Shaun Landante, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (Waterways Management
Division); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 2021, the Coast Guard was
notified by the event organizer that the anticipated date for the
activities associated with the U.S. President's address before a Joint
Session of Congress is scheduled for April 28, 2021. The Coast Guard
will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 for the zone identified in
paragraph (a)(6) on April 28, 2021. This action is being taken to
protect government officials, mitigate potential terrorist acts and
incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety and security
immediately before, during, and after this event.
    Our regulations for the Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia
River, and adjacent waters; Washington, DC, Sec.  165.508, specifies
the location for this security zone as an area that includes all
navigable waters described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). This
zone includes (1) Security Zone 1; all navigable waters of the Potomac
River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the Francis
Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, at mile 113, and bounded to the south by a
line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, at 38[deg]51'21.3'' N, 077[deg]02'00.0'' W, eastward
across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains
Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N, 077[deg]01'19.8'' W, including
the waters of the Boundary Channel, Pentagon Lagoon, Georgetown Channel
Tidal Basin, and Roaches Run. (2) Security Zone 2; all navigable waters
of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the
north by the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue) Bridge, at mile
2.9, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the District of
Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N,
077[deg]01'19.8'' W, southward across the Anacostia River to the
District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position
38[deg]50'52.4'' N, 077[deg]01'10.9'' W, including the waters of the
Washington Channel. (3) Security Zone 3 all navigable waters of the
Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a
line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, at 38[deg]51'21.3'' N, 077[deg]02'00.0'' W, eastward
across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains
Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N, 077[deg]01'19.8'' W, thence
southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia
shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38[deg]50'52.4'' N,
077[deg]01'10.9'' W, and bounded to the south by the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, at mile 103.8.
    As specified in Sec.  165.508(b), during the enforcement period,
entry into or remaining in the zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
Public vessels and vessels already at berth at the time the security
zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All
vessels underway within the security zone at the time it is implemented
are to depart the zone at the time the security zone is implemented. To
seek permission to transit the zone, the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-
2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast
Guard vessels enforcing this zone can be contacted on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard may be assisted
by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing
this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene
patrol personnel determines the security zone need not be enforced for
the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
may be used to suspend enforcement and grant general permission to
enter the security zone.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.508 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: April 16, 2021.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-08458 Filed 4-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10375-10376]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-1093]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0102

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0102,
National Response Resource Inventory, without change. Our ICR describes
the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting
this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described
below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2016-1093] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public participation
and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-1093], and
must be received by April 11, 2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: National Response Resource Inventory.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0102.
    Summary: The information is needed to improve the effectiveness of
deploying response equipment in the event of an oil spill. It may also
be used in the development of contingency plans.
    Need: Section 4202 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
380) requires the Coast Guard to compile and maintain a comprehensive
list of spill removal equipment in a response resource inventory (RRI).
This collection helps fulfill that requirement.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Oil spill removal organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 1,752
hours to 1,378 hours a year. The change in burden is due to a change in
the methodology for calculating burden. In past ICRs we did not
differentiate between the industry hour burden for inputting a new RRI
submission or updating an existing RRI submission. In this ICR, we
estimate that it takes fewer hours (i.e., 50% fewer hours) to review/
update an existing RRI submission than to input a new submission.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: February 6, 2017.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-02797 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9702-9706]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02331]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM16-20-000]

Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to approve
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes) submitted by
the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The purpose of
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial
action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable
reliability risks to the bulk electric system.

DATES: Comments are due April 10, 2017

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards and Security, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the
Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2
(Remedial Action Schemes). The North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO), submitted proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2
for approval. The purpose of proposed Reliability Standard PRC 012-2 is
to ensure that remedial action schemes (RAS) do not introduce
unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric
system. In addition, the Commission proposes to approve the associated
violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation
plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. NERC also submitted
proposals to retire two currently-effective Reliability Standards and
to withdraw three Reliability Standards that are pending review before
the Commission. While proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-
012-2, the Commission seeks clarifying comments addressing ``limited
impact'' RAS. Based on comments and information received, the
Commission may issue directives as appropriate.

I. Background

A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval.\1\ Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight,
or by the Commission independently.\2\ In 2006, the Commission
certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to section 215 of the FPA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(c), (d) (2012).
    \2\ Id. 824o(e).
    \3\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062
(ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ]
61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on
reh'g, 119 FERC ] 61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC,
564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Order No. 693

    3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including
Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Data and
Documentation) and PRC-016-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation).\4\
Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 requires transmission owners, generator
owners, and distribution providers to maintain a

listing; retain evidence of review; and provide documentation of
existing, new or functionally modified special protection systems.\5\
Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 requires transmission owners, generator
owners, and distribution providers to provide the regional reliability
organization with documentation, analyses and corrective action plans
for misoperation of special protection systems.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \5\ Id. PP 1529-1533.
    \6\ Id. PP 1534-1540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-012-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability
Standard because, while it was proposed to require regional reliability
organizations to ensure that all special protection systems are
properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated
with other protection systems, NERC had not submitted any regional
review procedures with this standard.\7\ The Commission also determined
that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-013-0 was a ``fill-in-the-
blank'' Reliability Standard because, although it was proposed to
ensure that all special protection systems are properly designed, meet
performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection
systems by requiring the regional reliability organization to maintain
a database of information on special protection systems, NERC had not
filed any regional procedures for maintaining the databases.\8\
Further, the Commission determined that proposed Reliability Standard
PRC-014-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standard because,
while it was proposed to ensure that special protection systems are
properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated
with other protection systems by requiring the regional reliability
organization to assess and document the operation, coordination, and
compliance with NERC Reliability Standards and effectiveness of special
protection systems at least once every five years, NERC had not
submitted any regional procedures for this assessment and
documentation.\9\ The Commission stated that it would not approve or
remand proposed Reliability Standards PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0 or PRC-014-0
until NERC submitted the additional necessary information to the
Commission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. PP 1517-18, 1520. The Commission used the term ``fill-
in-the-blank'' standards to refer to proposed Reliability Standards
that required the regional reliability organizations to develop at a
later date criteria for use by users, owners or operators within
each region. Id. P 297.
    \8\ Id. PP 1521, 1522, 1524.
    \9\ Id. PP 1525, 1526, 1528.
    \10\ Id. PP 1520, 1524, 1528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Remedial Acton Schemes

    5. On June 23, 2016, the Commission approved NERC's revision to
NERC Glossary of Terms that redefines special protection system to have
the same definition as RAS, effective April 1, 2017.\11\ Effective
April 1, 2017, the NERC Glossary of Terms will define Remedial Action
Scheme to mean:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD16-5-000 (June
23, 2016) (delegated letter order); NERC Glossary of Terms, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.

    A scheme designed to detect predetermined System conditions and
automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not
limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping
load, or reconfiguring a System(s). RAS accomplish objectives such
as:
     Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability
Standards;
     Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;
     Maintain acceptable BES voltages;
     Maintain acceptable BES power flows;
     Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NERC Glossary of Terms, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf; see also Revisions to Emergency Operations
Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding
Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of ``Remedial
Action Scheme'' and Related Reliability Standards, Order No. 818,
153 FERC ] 61,228, at PP 24, 31 (2015).

The revised RAS definition also identifies fourteen items that do not
individually constitute a RAS.

D. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2

    6. On August 5, 2016, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission
approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\13\ NERC contends
that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\14\
NERC explains that the intent of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-
2 is to supersede ``pending'' Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-
1, and PRC-014-1 and to retire and replace currently-effective
Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1.\15\ NERC states that
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 represents substantial
improvements over these Reliability Standards because it streamlines
and consolidates existing requirements; corrects the applicability of
previously unapproved Reliability Standards; and implements a
continent-wide RAS review program.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is not attached to
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The proposed Reliability
Standard is available on the Commission's eLibrary document
retrieval system in Docket No. RM16-20-000 and is posted on NERC's
Web site, http://www.nerc.com.
    \14\ NERC Petition at 2.
    \15\ NERC notes that it submitted ``for completeness'' revised
versions of Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-
1 in its petition to revise the definition of RAS, but NERC did not
request Commission approval of the revised Reliability Standards in
that proceeding. Id. at 1 n.5.
    \16\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. NERC states that, in the United States, proposed Reliability
Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to reliability coordinators, planning
coordinators, and RAS-entities. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2
defines RAS-entities to include the transmission owner, generation
owner, or distribution provider that owns all or part of a RAS.
    8. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2
includes nine requirements that combine all existing (both effective
and ``pending'') Reliability Standards into a single, consolidated,
continent-wide Reliability Standard to address all aspects of RAS.\17\
NERC states that all of the requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-
012-1 except R2 are now covered in Requirements R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6,
and R8 of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\18\ NERC explains
that Reliability Standard PRC-012-1, Requirement R2 is ``administrative
in nature and does not contribute to reliability.'' \19\ NERC also
states that it established Requirement R9 of proposed Reliability
Standard PRC-012-2 to replace the mandate in Reliability Standard PRC-
013-1 that responsible entities maintain a RAS database with pertinent
technical information for each RAS.\20\ NERC explains that proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 Requirements R4 and R6 cover the review
and the mandate to take corrective action required by Reliability
Standard PRC-014-1.\21\ NERC states that it integrated the performance
requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 into proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 Requirements R1, R2, and R3.\22\ NERC
maintains that it integrated the performance requirements in
Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 into proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
012-2 Requirements R5, R6, and R7.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 3.
    \18\ Id. at 40.
    \19\ Id. at 41.
    \20\ Id. at 42.
    \21\ Id. at 43.
    \22\ Id. at 43-44.
    \23\ Id. at 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. NERC explains how the nine Requirements in proposed Reliability

Standard PRC-012-2 work together and with other Reliability Standards.
Proposed Requirements R1, R2, and R3, together, establish a process for
the reliability coordinator to review new or modified RAS schemes.\24\
The reliability coordinator must complete the review before an entity
places a new or functionally modified RAS into service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 15-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Proposed Requirement R4 requires the planning coordinator to
perform a periodic evaluation of each RAS within its planning area, at
least once every five years.\25\ The evaluation must determine, inter
alia, whether each RAS: (1) Mitigates the system conditions or
contingencies for which it was designed; and (2) avoids adverse
interactions with other RAS and protection systems. Proposed
Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 defines a certain subset of RAS
as ``limited impact'' RAS to mean ``A RAS designated as limited impact
cannot, by inadvertent operation or failure to operate, cause or
contribute to BES Cascading, uncontrolled separation, angular
instability, voltage instability, voltage collapse, or unacceptably
damped oscillations.'' \26\ Further, proposed Requirement R4, Parts
4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5 provide certain exceptions to ``limited
impact'' RAS. For example, Part 4.1.5 states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 18-22.
    \26\ Id. at 19 & n.44.

    Except for limited impact RAS, a single component failure in the
RAS, when the RAS is intended to operate does not prevent the BES
from meeting the same performance requirements (defined in
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or its successor) as those required
for the events and conditions for which the RAS is designed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 19.

NERC explains that proposed Requirement R4 ``does not supersede or
modify [planning coordinator] responsibilities under Reliability
Standard TPL-001-4.'' \28\ NERC continues that even though Part 4.1.5
exempts ``limited impact'' RAS from certain aspects of proposed
Requirement R4, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not exempt
``limited impact'' RAS from meeting each of the performance
requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 28.
    \29\ Id. at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NERC states that prior to development of proposed Reliability
Standard PRC-012-2, two NERC Regions, the Northeast Power Coordinating
Council (NPCC) and the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC),
used individual RAS classification regimes to identify RAS that would
meet criteria similar to those for RAS described as ``limited impact''
in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\30\ NERC continues that the
standard drafting team identified the Local Area Protection Scheme
(LAPS) classification in WECC and the Type III classification in NPCC
as consistent with the ``limited impact'' designation.\31\ According to
NERC, RAS implemented prior to the effective date of proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that have gone through the regional
review processes of WECC or NPCC and that are classified as either a
LAPS by WECC or a Type III by NPCC, would be considered a ``limited
impact'' RAS for purposes of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-
2.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. at 25.
    \31\ Id. at 25-26.
    \32\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Proposed Requirements R5, R6, and R7 pertain to the analysis of
each RAS operation or misoperation.\33\ The RAS-entity must perform an
analysis of each RAS operation or misoperation and provide the results
to the reviewing reliability coordinator. Further, the RAS-entity must
develop and submit a corrective action plan to the reviewing
reliability coordinator after learning of a deficiency with its RAS,
implement the corrective action plan, and update it as necessary.
Proposed Requirement R8 requires periodic testing of RAS performance:
Every six years for normal RAS and 12 years for ``limited impact''
RAS.\34\ Proposed Requirement R9 requires the reliability coordinator
to annually update its RAS database.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id. at 29-34.
    \34\ Id. at 34-36.
    \35\ Id. at 36-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. NERC proposes an implementation plan that includes an effective
date for proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that is the first day
of the first calendar quarter that is thirty-six months after the date
that the Commission approves the proposed Reliability Standard.
Concurrent with the effective date, the implementation plan calls for
the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1
and PRC-016-1 and withdrawal of ``pending'' Reliability Standards PRC-
012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1.

II. Discussion

    14. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we propose to approve
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We also
propose to approve the associated violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by
NERC. Further, we propose to approve the withdrawal of ``pending''
Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and
retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and
PRC-016-1, as proposed by NERC.
    15. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 enhances reliability by
addressing all aspects of RAS in a single, continent-wide Reliability
Standard and by assigning specific RAS responsibilities to appropriate
functional entities. Accordingly, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
012-2 satisfies the relevant directive in Order No. 693. In addition,
we agree with NERC that Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1
can be retired as proposed in the implementation plan due to their
consolidation with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
    16. NERC's petition states that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
012-2 does not exempt ``limited impact'' RAS from meeting all system
performance requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We propose
to clarify that, consistent with NERC's explanation, proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system
performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\36\ For
example, under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Table 1 non-
consequential load loss may not exceed 75 MW for certain Category P1,
P2, or P3 contingencies following the Reliability Standard TPL-001-4
stakeholder process.\37\ We seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See NERC Petition at 28 (``Requirement R4 of PRC-012-2 does
not supersede or modify [planning coordinator] responsibilities
under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. . .'').
    \37\ Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Table 1 (Steady State &
Stability Performance Extreme Events), footnote 12 and Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. We also seek comment on the processes used to ensure the LAPS
or Type III RAS will be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4
prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2,
including a description of considerations on whether the load
disconnected by each RAS installation is consequential or non-
consequential, and if non-consequential load loss is greater than 75
MW.\38\ We further seek comment on whether the term ``limited

impact RAS'' should be defined in the Glossary of Terms Used in NERC
Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Commission notes that WECC's and NPCC's RAS criteria
and associated regional terms found in the ``Technical
Justification'' section of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2
were not submitted for approval by NERC and as such are not part of
this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    18. The collection of information addressed in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995.\39\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\40\ Upon approval of a
collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections
of information unless the collections of information display a valid
OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \40\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. The Commission will submit the information collection
requirement to OMB for its final review and approval. The Commission
solicits public comments on the need for this information, whether the
information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden
estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated
information techniques.
    20. The information collection requirements in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No. RM16-20-000 is associated with FERC-
725A (OMB Control No. 1902-0244) and FERC-725G (OMB Control No. 1902-
0252).
    21. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission proposes to approve
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2. The proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
012-2 consolidates so-called ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability
Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1 and PRC-014-1, as well as, Commission-
approved Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1, into one
standard. The proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves upon the
existing standards because it removes ambiguity in NERC's original
``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standards by assigning responsibility
to appropriate functional entities. It also streamlines and
consolidates the RAS Reliability Standards into one clear, effective
Reliability Standard. The number of respondents below is based on an
examination of the NERC compliance registry for reliability
coordinators, planning coordinators, transmission owners, generation
owners, and distribution providers and an estimation of how many
entities from that registry will be affected by the proposed
Reliability Standard. At the time of Commission review of proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, 15 reliability coordinators, 71
planning coordinators, 328 transmission owners, 930 generation owners,
and 367 distribution providers in the United States were registered in
the NERC compliance registry. However, under NERC's compliance
registration program, entities may be registered for multiple
functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting. The
Commission notes that many generation sites share a common generation
owner. The following table illustrates the estimated burden to be
applied to the information collection.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated as ``Eng.''
and record keeping is abbreviated as ``R.K.''
    \42\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Burden Hours per Response * $/hour = Cost per
Response. The $64.29/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.75/hour
figure for a record clerk are based on the average salary plus
benefits data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

                                      RM16-20-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
 Requirement and respondent category for      Number of     responses per   Total number of     Average burden hours and       Annual burden hours and
                PRC-012-2                    respondents     respondent        responses         cost per response \42\           total annual cost
                                                      (1)             (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)  (4).........................  (3) * (4) = (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R1. Each RAS-entity (TO, GO, DP).........           1,595               1              1,595  (Eng.) 24 hrs. ($1,543);      57,420 hrs. (38,280 Eng.,
                                                                                (R.K.) 12 hrs. ($453).        19,140 R.K.); $3,183,556
                                                                                ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535
                                                                                R.K.).
R2. Each Reliability Coordinator.........              15               1                 15  (Eng.) 16 hrs. ($1,029);      300 hrs. (240 Eng., 60
                                                                                (R.K.) 4 hrs. ($151).         R.K.); $17,695 ($15,430
                                                                                Eng., $2,265 R.K.).
R4. Each Planning Coordinator............              71               1                 71  (Eng.) 16 hrs. ($1,029);      1,420 hrs. (1,136 Eng., 284
                                                                                (R.K.) 4 hrs. ($151).         R.K.); $85,754 ($73,033
                                                                                Eng., $10,721 R.K.).
R5, R6, R7, and R8. Each RAS-entity (TO,            1,595               1              1,595  (Eng.) 24 hrs. ($1,543);      57,420 hrs. (38,280 Eng.,
 GO, DP).                                                                                (R.K.) 12 hrs. ($453).        19,140 R.K.); $3,183,556
                                                                                ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535
                                                                                R.K.).
R9. Each Reliability Coordinator.........              15               1                 15  (Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653);        210 hrs. (150 Eng., 60
                                                                                (R.K.) 4 hrs. ($151).         R.K.); $11,909 ($9,644
                                                                                Eng., $2,265 R.K.).
                                          ---------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL................................  ..............  ..............              3,291  ............................  116,770 hrs. (78,086 Eng.,
                                                                                38,684 R.K.); $6,480,470
                                                                                ($5,020,149 Eng.;
                                                                                $1,460,321 R.K.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards); FERC-725G
(Mandatory Reliability Standards: PRC-012-2).
    Action: Revision to existing collections.

    OMB Control No: 1902-0244 (FERC-725A); 1902-0252 (FERC-725G).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: Annually.
    Necessity of the Information: Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
012-2 sets forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure
that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or
unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are
coordinated to provide the service to the system as intended.
    Internal review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of its
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the
burden estimates associated with the information requirements.
    22. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    23. Comments concerning the information collection proposed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the associated burden estimates
should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to
the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent
by email to OMB at the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference FERC-725A and FERC-725G
and the docket number of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No.
RM16-20-000) in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    24. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\43\ The
action proposed here falls within the categorical exclusion in the
Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or
procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \44\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    25. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \45\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to
approximately 1,681 entities in the United States. Comparison of the
applicable entities with the Commission's small business data indicates
that approximately 1,025 are small entities or 61 percent of the
respondents affected by proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\46\
The Commission estimates for these small entities, proposed Reliability
Standard PRC-012-2 may need to be evaluated and documented every five
years with a cost of $6,322 for each evaluation. The Commission views
this as a minimal economic impact for each entity. Accordingly, the
Commission certifies that the proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for
what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under
one of several different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates,
the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we apply a 500 employee threshold for
each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk
Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Procedures

    27. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due April 10, 2017. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM16-20-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    28. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    29. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    30. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    31. 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 the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    32. From the Commission'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.
    33. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: January 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02331 Filed 2-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P