[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 7433]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-946-000]

Clear Green Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Clear Green Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 16, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 27, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02248 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68243-68246]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26843]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87696; File No. SR-NSCC-2019-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Require
Confirmation of Cybersecurity Program

December 9, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On October 15, 2019, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2019-003. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 30, 2019.\3\
The Commission did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule
change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87392 (October 24,
2019), 84 FR 58183 (October 30, 2019) (SR-NSCC-2019-003)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    NSCC proposes to modify its Rules and Procedures (``Rules'') \4\ in
order to (1) define the term ``Cybersecurity Confirmation'' as a
written representation that addresses a submitting entity's
cybersecurity program (described more fully below);

(2) require NSCC's members and applicants for membership to submit to
NSCC a Cybersecurity Confirmation (both as part of an initial
application for membership, and on an ongoing basis for members, at
least every two years); and (3) provide that NSCC may require a
Cybersecurity Confirmation from organizations that report trade data to
NSCC for comparison and trade recording.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
References to ``members'' in this Order include both Members and
Limited Members, as such terms are defined in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    NSCC plays a prominent role in providing clearance, settlement,
risk management, central counterparty services, and a guarantee of
completion for virtually all broker-to-broker trades involving equity
securities, corporate and municipal debt securities, American
depository receipts, exchange traded funds, and unit investment
trusts.\5\ In light of NSCC's critical role in the marketplace, NSCC
was designated a Systemically Important Financial Market Utility
(``SIFMU'') under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010.\6\ Due to NSCC's unique position in
the marketplace, a failure or a disruption to NSCC could, among other
things, increase the risk of significant liquidity problems spreading
among financial institutions or markets, and thereby threaten the
stability of the financial system in the United States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Financial Stability Oversight Counsel 2012 Annual
Report, Appendix A (``FSOC 2012 Report''), available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). See FSOC 2012 Report, supra note 5.
    \7\ See FSOC 2012 Report, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC's members and trade data reporting organizations connect to
NSCC, either through the Securely Managed and Reliable Technology
(``SMART'') network or through other electronic means, such as a third
party service provider, service bureau, network, or the internet. The
SMART network is a technology managed by NSCC's parent company, The
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''), that connects a
nationwide complex of networks, processing centers, and control
facilities. Currently, NSCC does not require its members, applicants
for membership, or trade data reporting organizations to represent that
they maintain a cybersecurity program as a condition for connecting to
NSCC via the SMART network or other means.
    NSCC states that many of its members, applicants for membership,
and trade data reporting organizations may currently be subject to
regulations that are designed, in part, to protect against
cyberattacks.\8\ Accordingly, such entities would currently be required
to follow standards established by national or international
organizations focused on information security management, and they
would currently maintain protocols for their senior management to
verify the existence of cybersecurity programs sufficient to meet
regulatory obligations. NSCC further believes that some of its members,
applicants for membership, and trade data reporting organizations might
also currently follow protocols substantially similar to the
regulations referred to earlier in this paragraph in order to meet the
evolving cybersecurity expectations of regulators and/or their own
institutional customers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, depending on the type of entity, NSCC states
that its members may be subject to one or more of the following
regulations: (1) Regulation S-ID, which requires ``financial
institutions'' or ``creditors'' under the rule to adopt programs to
identify and address the risk of identity theft of individuals (17
CFR 248.201--202); (2) Regulation S-P, which requires broker-
dealers, investment companies, and investment advisers to adopt
written policies and procedures that address administrative,
technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of customer
records and information (17 CFR 248.1--30); and (3) Rule 15c3-5
under the Act, known as the ``Market Access Rule,'' which requires
broker-dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system for
regularly reviewing the effectiveness of its management controls and
supervisory procedures (17 CFR 240.15c3-5). Notice, supra note 3, at
58184.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NSCC believes that its members, applicants for membership,
and trade data reporting organizations may currently maintain robust
cybersecurity programs, NSCC seeks to better ensure the protection of
its network by requiring its members, applicants for membership, and
trade data reporting organizations to confirm that they are meeting
certain cybersecurity standards in order to connect to NSCC via the
SMART network or other means. Therefore, NSCC proposes to require all
members, applicants for membership, and certain trade data reporting
organizations to submit a written Cybersecurity Confirmation that
includes specific representations regarding the submitting entity's
cybersecurity program and framework. NSCC states that the information
contained in the Cybersecurity Confirmation would help NSCC to better
understand the cybersecurity programs and frameworks of entities
seeking to connect to NSCC, and thereby identify possible cyber risk
exposures.\10\ As a result, NSCC would be better able to establish
appropriate controls to mitigate such risks and their possible impacts
on NSCC's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Notice, supra note 3, at 58183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes

    NSCC proposes to modify its Rules to: (1) Provide a detailed
definition of the Cybersecurity Confirmation; (2) require NSCC's
members and applicants for membership to submit to NSCC a Cybersecurity
Confirmation (both as part of an initial application for membership,
and on an ongoing basis for members, at least every two years); and (3)
provide that NSCC may require a Cybersecurity Confirmation from
organizations that report trade data to NSCC. Each of these proposed
rule changes is described in greater detail below.
1. Cybersecurity Confirmation
    NSCC proposes to define the term ``Cybersecurity Confirmation'' to
mean a written form, in a format provided by NSCC and signed by the
submitting entity's designated senior executive with the authority to
attest to the cybersecurity matters contained in the form.\11\ The form
would contain specific representations regarding the submitting
entity's cybersecurity program and framework. Such representations
would cover the two years prior to the date of the most recently
provided Cybersecurity Confirmation. The Cybersecurity Confirmation
would include the following representations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice, supra note 3, at 58183. See also NSCC Cybersecurity
Confirmation Form, submitted as Exhibit 3 to SR-FICC-2019-003,
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2019/34-87392-ex3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The submitting entity has defined and maintains a
comprehensive cybersecurity program and framework that considers
potential cyber threats that impact the submitting entity's
organization, and protects the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability requirements of its systems and information.
     The submitting entity has implemented and maintains a
written enterprise cybersecurity policy or policies approved by the
submitting entity's senior management or board of directors, and the
submitting entity's cybersecurity framework is in alignment with
standard industry best practices and guidelines.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Examples of recognized frameworks, guidelines and standards
that NSCC believes are adequate include the Financial Services
Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Profile, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework
(``NIST CSF''), International Organization for Standardization
(``ISO'') standard 27001/27002 (``ISO 27001''), Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council (``FFIEC'') Cybersecurity
Assessment Tool, Critical Security Controls Top 20, and Control
Objectives for Information and Related Technologies. NSCC would
identify recognized frameworks, guidelines and standards in the form
of Cybersecurity Confirmation and in an Important Notice that NSCC
would issue from time to time. NSCC would also consider accepting
other standards upon request. Notice, supra note 3, at 58184.

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

     If the submitting entity uses a third party service
provider or service bureau(s) to connect or transact business or to
manage the connection with NSCC, the submitting entity has an
appropriate program to evaluate the cyber risks and impact of these
third parties and to review the third party assurance reports.
     The submitting entity's cybersecurity program and
framework protects the segment of its system that connects to and/or
interacts with NSCC.
     The submitting entity has in place an established process
to remediate cyber issues identified to meet its regulatory and/or
statutory requirements.
     The submitting entity periodically updates the risk
processes of its cybersecurity program and framework based on a risk
assessment or changes to technology, business, threat ecosystem, and/or
regulatory environment.
     The submitting entity's cybersecurity program and
framework has been reviewed by one of the following: (1) The submitting
entity, if it has filed and maintains a current Certification of
Compliance with the Superintendent of the New York State Department of
Financial Services confirming compliance with its Cybersecurity
Requirements for Financial Services Companies; \13\ (2) a regulator who
assesses the submitting entity's cybersecurity program and framework
against an industry cybersecurity framework or industry standard,
including those that are listed on the Cybersecurity Confirmation form
and in an Important Notice that is issued by NSCC from time to time;
\14\ (3) an independent external entity with cybersecurity domain
expertise in relevant industry standards and practices, including those
that are listed on the Cybersecurity Confirmation form and in an
Important Notice that is issued by NSCC from time to time; \15\ or (4)
an independent internal audit function reporting directly to the
submitting entity's board of directors or designated board of directors
committee, such that the findings of that review are shared with these
governance bodies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 23 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 23, Sec.  500 et seq.
(2017). NSCC states that this regulation requires entities to
confirm that they have comprehensive cybersecurity programs as
described in the regulation, and NSCC believes this regime is
sufficient to meet the objectives of the proposed Cybersecurity
Confirmation. Notice, supra note 3, at 58184.
    \14\ NSCC states that current industry cybersecurity frameworks
and industry standards could include, for example, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency or the FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment
Tool. NSCC would identify acceptable industry cybersecurity
frameworks and standards in the Cybersecurity Confirmation form and
in an Important Notice that NSCC would issue from time to time. NSCC
would also consider accepting other industry cybersecurity
frameworks and standards upon request. Notice, supra note 3, at
58185.
    \15\ NSCC states that a third party with cybersecurity domain
expertise is one that follows and understands applicable industry
standards, practices, and regulations, such as ISO 27001
certification or NIST CSF assessment. NSCC would identify acceptable
industry standards and practices in the Cybersecurity Confirmation
form and in an Important Notice that NSCC would issue from time to
time. NSCC would also consider accepting other industry standards
and practices upon request. Notice, supra note 3, at 58185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC states that it designed the representations in the
Cybersecurity Confirmation to provide information on how each
submitting entity manages cybersecurity with respect to its
connectivity to NSCC.\16\ NSCC believes that by requiring these
representations from members, applicants for membership, and trade data
reporting organizations, the proposed Cybersecurity Confirmation would
provide useful information designed to enable NSCC to make informed
decisions about risks or threats, perform additional monitoring, target
potential vulnerabilities, and otherwise protect the NSCC network.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Notice, supra note 3, at 58185.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Initial and Ongoing Membership Requirement
    NSCC proposes to require new applicants for NSCC membership to
submit a Cybersecurity Confirmation as part of their application
materials. NSCC also proposes to require all NSCC members to submit a
Cybersecurity Confirmation at least every two years. With respect to
the requirement to submit a Cybersecurity Confirmation at least every
two years, NSCC would provide all members with notice of the date on
which the Cybersecurity Confirmation would be due no later than 180
calendar days prior to the due date.
3. Organizations Reporting Trade Data to NSCC
    NSCC proposes to modify the Rules to provide that, when determining
whether to accept trade data from an organization for comparison and
trade recording,\18\ NSCC may require the organization to submit a
Cybersecurity Confirmation. Since such organizations are not NSCC
members, contracts (i.e., separate from the Rules) govern the
relationships between NSCC and such organizations. NSCC states that
this proposal would provide transparency regarding the steps NSCC may
take when determining whether to accept trade data from such
organizations.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Rule 7 (Comparison and Trade Recording Operation),
supra note 4.
    \19\ Notice, supra note 3, at 58185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Implementation Timeframe

    The proposed rule change would be effective upon Commission
approval. New applicants for NSCC membership would be required to
submit a Cybersecurity Confirmation as part of their application
materials. The requirement to submit a Cybersecurity Confirmation would
also apply to applicants whose applications are pending with NSCC at
the time the Commission approves the proposed rule change. For existing
NSCC members, NSCC would provide notice of the due date to submit a
Cybersecurity Confirmation, not later than 180 days prior to the due
date. Finally, NSCC would provide such notice to its members at least
every two years going forward.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \20\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. After carefully considering the proposed rule
change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC. In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\21\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) and
(e)(17)(ii) promulgated under the Act,\22\ for the reasons described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) and (e)(17)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of

the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC proposes to require its members,
applicants for membership, and trade data reporting organizations
seeking to connect to NSCC via the SMART network or other means, to
submit a Cybersecurity Confirmation, confirming the existence and
nature of their cybersecurity programs. The Cybersecurity Confirmations
should provide NSCC with useful information regarding the cybersecurity
programs of the submitting entities. By conditioning an entity's
connectivity to NSCC via the SMART network or other means on the
submission of a Cybersecurity Confirmation, NSCC should be better
enabled to reduce the cyber risks of electronically connecting to
entities that have not confirmed the existence and nature of their
cybersecurity programs. Accordingly, the proposed Cybersecurity
Confirmation requirement should provide NSCC with information to better
identify its exposure to cyber risks and to take steps to mitigate
those risks.
    If not adequately addressed, the risk of cyberattacks and other
cyber vulnerabilities could affect NSCC's network and NSCC's ability to
clear and settle securities transactions, or to safeguard the
securities and funds which are in NSCC's custody or control, or for
which it is responsible. The proposed Cybersecurity Confirmation
requirement is a tool designed to address those risks as described
above. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed Cybersecurity
Confirmation requirement would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of NSCC or for which it is responsible, consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the covered
clearing agency's operational risks by identifying the plausible
sources of operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigating
their impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies,
procedures, and controls.\25\ NSCC's operational risks include
protecting its electronic systems from cyber risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, entities connect electronically to NSCC via the
SMART network or other means. The proposed Cybersecurity Confirmation
requirement should reduce cyber risks to NSCC by requiring members,
applicants for membership, and trade data reporting organizations to
confirm that they have defined and maintain cybersecurity programs and
frameworks that meet standard industry best practices and guidelines.
The representations in each submitting entity's Cybersecurity
Confirmation would provide information that should help NSCC to
mitigate its exposure to cyber risks, and thereby decrease the
operational risks presented to NSCC by its connections to such
entities. Thus, the proposed Cybersecurity Confirmations should enable
NSCC to better identify potential sources of external operational risks
and mitigate the possible impacts of those risks. Because the proposed
changes would help NSCC identify and mitigate plausible sources of
external operational risk, the Commission finds the proposed changes
are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i) under
the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii) under the Act requires that each covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage the covered
clearing agency's operational risks by ensuring, in part, that systems
have a high degree of security, resiliency, and operational
reliability.\27\ As noted above, NSCC's operational risks include
protecting its electronic systems from cyber risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NSCC believes that its members, applicants for membership,
and trade data reporting organizations may currently maintain robust
cybersecurity programs, NSCC currently does not require those entities
to represent that they maintain a cybersecurity program as a condition
for connecting to NSCC via the SMART network or other means. NSCC
designed the proposed Cybersecurity Confirmation requirement to reduce
cyber risks by requiring its members, applicants, and trade data
reporting organizations to confirm that they have defined and maintain
cybersecurity programs and frameworks that meet standard industry best
practices and guidelines. The representations in each submitting
entity's Cybersecurity Confirmation would provide more security for
NSCC's SMART network and other systems by providing NSCC with
information designed to help manage its cyber-related operational
risks, which in turn, would enable NSCC to take steps necessary to
strengthen the security of its network to mitigate those risks. Since
the proposal would enhance NSCC's ability to ensure that its systems
have a high degree of security, resiliency, and operational
reliability, the Commission finds the proposed changes are consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(ii) under the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\29\ and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\30\ that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2019-003, be, and hereby is,
approved.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \31\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26843 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM

TO:	Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM:	TJ Finseth, ERG
	Danielle Lewis, ERG

DATE:	April 19, 2013

SUBJECT:	Additional Announced Retirements Not Accounted for in the Proposed ELGs

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) for development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. EPA, with the support of ERG, distributed the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines (Steam Electric Survey) to 733 power plants in the summer of 2010 to gather plant-specific data on the steam electric industry. The Steam Electric Survey requested data on plant operations in 2009. EPA used the collected data to inform various analyses including, but not limited to, estimating the compliance costs and pollutant removals associated with the proposed ELGs, developing the profile of the industry, and obtaining characterization data for the wastestreams generated by the industry.

EPA recognizes that plant operations and future plans regarding upgrades and modifications may have changed since the plants submitted responses to the Steam Electric Survey. Therefore, ERG gathers information on an ongoing basis from public sources, including company press releases and information from technology vendors to account for the following changes to the industry:

Plants retiring units;
Plants converting fuel types to eliminate fossil fuel combustion residuals, especially residuals from coal or petroleum coke;
Plants upgrading a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) or leachate wastewater treatment system; and
Plants converting one or more units to a dry fly or bottom ash handling system.
The memorandum entitled, "Changes to Industry Profile for Steam Electric Generating Units for the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Proposed Rule" (DCN SE02033), describes the process ERG used to identify and verify the retirements, fuel conversions, upgrades, and ash system conversions at plants. The memorandum also provides a listing of all the changes to the industry profile that ERG incorporated for the proposed ELGs. Specifically, as described in that memorandum, due to the need to complete certain analyses (e.g., compliance costs, pollutant loadings) to meet the deadline for proposing the revised ELGs, ERG incorporated unit retirements or fuel conversions announced through August 2012 in the costs and loadings analyses for the proposed ELGs.  ERG was not able to incorporate retirements announced after August 2012 into the costs and loadings analyses.

This memorandum lists those additional unit retirements or fuel conversions announced after August 2012 (through the date of this memorandum), and provides an estimate of the reductions in incremental compliance costs and pollutant reductions that would result from these retirements/conversions. For this analysis, ERG considered announced plans through 2022, which marks the end of the implementation period for the ELGs. Therefore, in addition to assessing the retirements and fuel conversions announced since August 2012, ERG also reevaluated the announcements identified prior to August 2012 because ERG only excluded plants/units from the costs and loadings analyses if the retirement/conversion was scheduled to occur on or prior to December 31, 2014.  ERG will consider all of these announcements, as well as any additional future announcements, when developing the industry profile and the compliance costs and loadings analyses for the final ELGs.

Table 1 lists the name and location of plants announcing the retirement or fuel conversion of at least one generating unit scheduled to occur by December 31, 2022, that were not already incorporated into EPA's industry profile and costs and loadings analyses for the proposed ELGs. Table 1 also identifies the company press release or other source documenting the announcement, which EPA has included in the rulemaking record.

Table 1. Plants with at Least One Generating Unit Retiring or Converting Fuels by December 31, 2022, but Not Incorporated in the Proposed ELG
                                  Plant Name
                                     City
                                     State
                            Document Control Number
Avon Lake Power Plant
                                   Avon Lake
                                      OH
                                    SE01974
B.C. Cobb Power Plant
                                   Muskegon
                                      MI
                                    SE01970
Big Sandy Plant
                                    Louisa
                                      KY
                                    SE01739
Bremo Power Station
                                  Bremo Bluff
                                      VA
                                    SE02943
Buck Steam Station
                                   Salisbury
                                      NC
                                    SE03800
Canadys Plant
                                  Walterboro
                                      SC
                                    SE01811
Cane Run
                                  Louisville
                                      KY
                                    SE02938
Chesapeake Energy Center
                                  Chesapeake
                                      VA
                                    SE02943
Clinch River Plant
                                   Cleveland
                                      OH
                                    SE01739
Dolphus M. Grainger Generating Station
                                    Conway
                                      SC
                                    SE02937
Edgewater Generating Station
                                   Edgewater
                                      WI
                                    SE02941
Glen Lyn Plant
                                   Glen Lyn
                                      PA
                                    SE01739
J.C. Weadock Power Plant
                                  Essexville
                                      MI
                                    SE01970
J.E. Corette
                                   Billings
                                      MA
                                    SE02940
J.R. Whiting Power Plant
                                   Luna Pier
                                      MI
                                    SE01970
Jefferies Generating Station
                                 Moncks Corner
                                      SC
                                    SE02937
Kammer Plant
                                    Captina
                                      WV
                                    SE01739
Kanawha River Plant
                                    Glasgow
                                      WV
                                    SE01739
Muskingum River Plant
                                    Beverly
                                      OH
                                    SE01739
Nelson Dewey Generating Station
                                   Cassville
                                      WI
                                    SE02941
New Castle Power Plant
                                West Pittsburg
                                      PA
                                    SE01974
Phillip Sporn Plant
                                Graham Station
                                      WV
                                    SE01739
Picway Plant
                                  Lockbourne
                                      OH
                                    SE01739
Plant Branch
                                 Milledgeville
                                      GA
                                    SE03799
Plant Kraft
                                Port Wentworth
                                      GA
                                    SE03799
Plant McManus
                                   Brunswick
                                      GA
                                    SE03799
Plant Yates
                                    Newnan
                                      GA
                                    SE03799
Portland Generating Station
                                  Mt. Bethel
                                      PA
                                    SE01974
Riverbend Steam Station
                                  Mount Holly
                                      NC
                                    SE03800
Riverside Generating Station
                                  Bettendorf
                                      IA
                                    SE03801
San Juan Generating Station
                                   Waterflow
                                      NM
                                    SE03802
Shawville
                                   Shawville
                                      PA
                                    SE01974
Tanners Creek Plant
                                 Lawrenceberg
                                      IN
                                    SE01739
Titus Generation Station
                                   Birdsboro
                                      PA
                                    SE01974
Walter C Beckjord Station
                                 New Richmond
                                      OH
                                    SE01743
Walter Scott Jr Energy Center
                                Council Bluffs
                                      IA
                                    SE03801
Yorktown Power Station
                                   Yorktown
                                      VA
                                    SE02943

Table 2 presents estimated incremental annualized costs and pollutant removals, by wastestream and regulatory option, for three groups of plants:

   * "Current Population" - the industry profile assumed for the proposed ELGs (incorporates changes (e.g., announced unit retirements and fuel conversions) identified through August 2012);
   * "Additional Retirements" - the plants listed in Table 1 above (e.g., unit retirements and fuel conversions announced after August 2012 or retirements/conversions announced prior to August 2012 that are scheduled to occur between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022);
   * "Current Population Excluding Additional Retirements"  -  the industry profile that would have been assumed for the proposed ELGs, if EPA had incorporated all changes that have been identified and scheduled to occur on or prior to December 31, 2022 (i.e., "Current Population" minus "Additional Retirements").

ERG considers the estimates presented in Table 2 for the "Additional Retirements" population, and by difference for the "Current Population Excluding Additional Retirements" population, to be estimates because they were calculated using an abbreviated methodology as compared to that used for the proposed ELGs. Specifically, for each plant listed in Table 1, ERG prorated the plant's ELG costs and pollutant removals for the proposed rule based on the percentage of the plant's units announced for retirement or fuel conversion that incur costs for each wastestream. For example, a plant has three units that incur FGD costs and two units that incur fly ash costs and one unit that incurs costs for both FGD and fly ash is announced to be retired prior to December 31, 2022. In this example, ERG estimated the "Additional Retirements" portion of this plant's estimated incremental annual compliance costs and pollutant removals as one-third of the plant's FGD costs and pollutant removals for the proposed rule and one-half of the plant's fly ash costs and pollutant removals.

Table 2. Estimated Incremental Annualized Costs and Pollutant Removals, by Waste Stream and Regulatory Option, for Three Industry Profiles
                                 Waste Stream
                              Current Population
Portion of Costs/Removals Associated With Additional Changes (e.g., Retirements)
     Current Population Excluding Additional Changes (e.g., Retirements)

          Annualized Pre-Tax Compliance Cost (in millions, $2010)[c]
                        Pollutant Removals[a] (TWPE/yr)
          Annualized Pre-Tax Compliance Cost (in millions, $2010)[c]
                        Pollutant Removals[a] (TWPE/yr)
          Annualized Pre-Tax Compliance Cost (in millions, $2010)[c]
                        Pollutant Removals[a] (TWPE/yr)
Technology Option
FGD (Chemical Precipitation)
$266
1,534,258
$7.5
34,865
$258
1,499,393
FGD (Chemical Precipitation + Biological Treatment)
$393
2,615,339
$10.6
58,713
$383
2,556,626
Fly Ash (Zero Discharge)
$168
2,488,469
$17.9
395,176
$150
2,093,293
Bottom Ash (Zero Discharge)
$719
2,705,159
$87.4
209,628
$631
2,495,531
Leachate Only (Chemical Precipitation)
Leachate with FGD (Chem Precip +         Biological Treatment)[b]
$93
37,863
$4.4
741
$89
37,122
Regulatory Option
                                       1
$265.90
1,534,258
$7.5
34,865
$258.36
1,499,393
                                       2
$393.30
2,615,339
$10.6
58,713
$382.74
2,556,626
                                       3
$561.30
5,103,808
$28.5
453,889
$532.83
4,649,919
                                       4
$1,373.20
7,846,830
$120.3
664,259
$1,252.93
7,182,571
[a] Pollutant removals represent the removals for the plants based on oil-fired units and units with a capacity of 50 MW or less not needing to install the technology basis (i.e., oil-fired units and units with a capacity of 50 MW or less do not achieve any removals). The removals exclude the pollutant parameters BOD, COD, TDS, and TSS because they double count the loadings for specific pollutants already included.
[b] Costs and pollutant removals are based on plants that have both FGD wastewater and landfill leachate treating the two wastestreams in a combined treatment system with chemical precipitation and biological treatment. Plants that only have landfill leachate treat it in a separate treatment system with chemical precipitation. The costs represent the incremental increase in the biological treatment system to build a larger system to handle the leachate flow rate. The pollutant removals represent the removals associated with only the leachate stream. These costs and removals, in combination with the FGD biological treatment costs and removals, were used for Regulatory Option 4.  Plants treating both FGD wastewater and landfill leachate in a combined treatment system receive loadings for the biological treatment option. Plants treating landfill leachate in a separate treatment system receive loadings for chemical precipitation treatment option.
[c] Costs shown are pre-tax compliance costs, discounted using 7%; compare to RIA Table 3-2. For details on methodology, see Chapter 3 in RIA.


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 20941-20942]
[DOCID:fr06my09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1025-000]

New England Gas & Electric, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

April 29, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
New England Gas & Electric, Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 19, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a

document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10405 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5805-5807]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-3]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified below.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
April 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to
either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-497,
Washington, DC 20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC
20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their
respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard
stating, ``Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-NEW'' and should also
include the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to
(202) 493-6216 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to Mr. Brogan at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer
to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA
will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a
subsequent notice and include them in its information collection
submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W33-497, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of
Information Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Room W34-212, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-
493-6132).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations require. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:

    Title: Federal Railroad Administration Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) Disparity Study.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-NEW.
    Abstract: The objective of this work is to complete a
congressionally-mandated disparity study evaluating the participation
by small and disadvantaged businesses in railroad contracting that
meets the requirements of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
program for federally-funded projects administered by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), 49 CFR part 26. The purpose of this disparity study is to
evaluate the market for the availability and utilization of small and
disadvantaged businesses in publicly-funded railroad contracting. The
study will be used as evidence to inform FRA and DOT on the state of
small and disadvantaged business contracting in the railroad industry
and will be a component in the FRA's Title VI compliance program.
    FRA does not currently have statutory authority to administer a DBE
program like those in place at FHWA, FTA, and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). DOT DBE regulations applicable to FHWA, FTA and
FAA require state and local transportation agencies that receive DOT
financial assistance to establish goals for the participation of DBEs.
Each DOT-assisted State and local transportation agency is required to
establish annual DBE goals, review the scopes of anticipated large
prime contracts, and establish contract-specific DBE subcontracting
goals. Without statutory DBE authority, FRA can only encourage
recipients of its Federal financial assistance to use in their projects
small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals. These types of small business
concerns include small businesses, DBEs, Veteran-Owned Small
Businesses, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses.
Despite the lack of a formal DBE program, FRA fully supports the
objectives of DBE programs and all FRA's grantees are required to avoid
discrimination in contracting.
    In addition, in late 2015, Congress passed the ``Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act'' (FAST Act), (Pub. L. 114-94). The FAST Act
codified the requirement for FRA to conduct ``a nationwide disparity
and availability study on the availability and use of small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals and veteran-owned small businesses in
publicly funded intercity rail passenger transportation projects.'' See
FAST Act, sec. 11310, Small Business Participation Study. The
legislation requires that: ``Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report containing
the results of the study . . . to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.'' Id.
    The collection of information for the study includes three surveys
and a series of webinar focus groups. In Survey #1, FRA's study
contractor (i.e., the Jack Faucett Associates team) will contact all
FRA grant recipients and work with them to identify all of the prime
contractors, consultants, and vendors with whom they spent grant funds
and the amount of those funds. Next, the study team will contact the
sub-grantees, prime contractors, consultants and suppliers that the
study identified, and work with them to identify all subcontractors,
sub-consultants, and suppliers that they utilize and the amount of
those contracts. This survey is necessary to develop estimates of the
amount of FRA grants and contracts that flow to DBEs.
    In Survey #2, the study team will survey DBE and non-DBE firms in
the railroad industry. The survey will elicit data on firms'
experiences with discrimination, as well as experiences in bidding with
the grantees and their prime contractors and consultants. This approach
ensures that anecdotal findings are corroborated by an actual
representation of the DBE and non-DBE communities at large in the
relevant markets. The personal experiences of disparate treatment
suffered by minorities or women in seeking and performing public and
private sector work in the relevant marketplace reinforce buttress
sound statistical evidence of disparate impacts. Since response rates
to voluntary surveys tend to be fairly low, the study team will take
additional steps to increase responsiveness, including an outreach
campaign, professionally designed surveys, cover letters signed by top
FRA officials, multiple reminders, and a devoted wide-area telephone
service line and email address for requesting replacement surveys and
addressing other inquiries. Moreover, the study team will statistically
validate representativeness using surveys of non-respondents.
    In the focus groups, the study team will also collect qualitative
anecdotal information through in-depth webinar focus groups of DBE and
non-DBE business owners, as well as procurement personnel at FRA and
its grantees. These focus groups likewise will explore barriers to the
full and fair participation of DBEs in FRA's market area and that of
its grantees. The focus groups also will investigate whether the USDOT
programs and policies, as they apply to FRA and its grantees,
adequately address these challenges. These focus groups will yield
valuable information about the day-to-day realities affecting DBE firms
and will inform how to develop FRA's policy responses to those
challenges.
    In Survey #3, the study team will survey firms to verify their DBE
status. The comparison of FRA's use of DBEs versus their prevalence by
industry and geography is crucial to developing the sound statistical
evidence of discrimination the courts have required. Starting from
known business establishment lists (such as those from Dun &
Bradstreet), the study will cross-reference numerous additional
listings and directories of DBE firms in the relevant geographic and
product markets in order to improve the classification of firms
according to their status. Next, the study team will take the
additional step of validating putative assignments using telephone
surveys of a statistically random sample of businesses from the master
database.
    Type of Request: Approval of a new collection of information.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.171; FRA F 6180.172; FRA F 6180.173; FRA F
6180.174.
    Respondent Universe: 35,000 Grantees, Sub-Grantees, Prime
Contractors, Sub-Contractors, DBEs, and Non-Disadvantaged Business
Firms.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time
                 Form No.                         Respondent universe           Total annual responses     per response    Total annual    Total annual
                                                                                (hours)      burden hours    burden cost *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey #1: Grantee and Contractor          1,250 Grantees, Sub-grantees,     500 surveys................               4           2,000        $115,300
 Collection Form.                           Prime-Contractors, and Sub-
                                            Contractors.
Survey #2: Experiences with                35,000 DBE and non-DBE firms....  2,750 surveys..............             .25             688          39,663
 Discrimination.
Focus Groups on Experiences with           20,000 DBE and non-DBE firms....  250 focus group                           1             250          14,413
 Discrimination.                                                              participants.
Survey #3: DBE Status Verification.......  28,000 DBE and non-DBE firms....  4,250 surveys..............             .05             213          12,279
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The annual hourly wage rate for the above calculations is $57.65 and is derived from the Management Occupations (Occupational Code 11-0000) Bureau
  of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor: Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2017, National Occupational Employment and Wage
  Estimates.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 7,750.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 3,151 hours.
    Total Estimated Dollar Cost: $181,655.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-03049 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33775]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1981-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 1 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 North Dakota (FEMA-1981-DR), dated May 10, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 2, 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 North Dakota is hereby amended to include the
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of May 10, 2011.

Burleigh County for Public 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. 2011-14319 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 20, 2014

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	August 12, 2014 Call with ODEQ regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was made by EPA to the ODEQ and the attendee listed below on August 12, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Participant:	Eddie Terrill

EPA Participants:	Terry Johnson, Clovis Steib, and Rob Lawrence (Region 6) and Kevin Callaghan (OAR)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11061-11062]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG22-57-000.
    Applicants: Panorama Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Panorama Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL19-58-012.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reserve Compliance Filing Docket
Nos. EL19-58, ER19-1486 to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/14/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2402-002.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: UGI Utilities Inc. Compliance
Filing to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1130-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Central Maine Power Company, The
United Illuminating Company, Maine Electric Power Company, Inc.,
Versant Power, Eversource Energy Service Company (as agent), The
Connecticut Light and Power Company, NSTAR Electric Company, Public
Service Company of New Hampshire, Green Mountain Power Corporation, New
England Power Company, New Hampshire Transmission, LLC, Unitil Energy
Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: NETOs; ER20-2572-001, ER21-1130-001 & ER22--Compliance
Filing to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1709-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Vermont Transco LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Vermont Transco LLC; Docket ER21-1709 et al. Revised Eff
Date for Order No. 864 to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-290-001.
    Applicants: Oakland Power Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Implementation of Capital
Items to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1086-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Central Maine Power Company, The
United Illuminating Company, Maine Electric Power Company, Inc.,
Versant Power, Eversource Energy Service Company (as agent), Green
Mountain Power Corporation, New England Power Company, New Hampshire
Transmission, LLC, Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company, Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc., Vermont
Transco LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: NETOs; ER20-2572-001; ER21-1130-001 & ER22--to be
effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1087-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Powerex Construction and
Security Agreement to be effective 2/22/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1088-000.
    Applicants: BIF II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 2/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1089-000.
    Applicants: Jackson Generation, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule and
Request for Waiver and Expedited Action to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1090-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2486R1 ITC Great Plains/
NPPD/Midwest Interconnection Agr to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1091-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-BRP Carina BESS 1st
A&R Generation Interconnection Agreement to be effective 2/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1092-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation EDP Ltr
Agreement SCE and Falcon Energy SA No. 1143 to be effective 4/25/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1093-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Termination of RS 740 LVE Const Agmt
for Threemile Knoll--Hooper Springs to be effective 4/23/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1094-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-22 Intertie
Deviation Settlements--Clarification to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1095-000.
    Applicants: KCE NY 6, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
2/22/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220222-5268.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings.
    Docket Numbers: RD22-3-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Application of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Modification to the Compliance Section of
Reliability Standard CIP-014.
    Filed Date: 2/16/22.
    Accession Number: 20220216-5230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/15/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 22, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04129 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40941-40945]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0163]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0163 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. 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
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 23 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Randall W. Amtower

    Mr. Amtower, 51, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Amtower understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Amtower meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class E operator's license from West Virginia.

Steven G. Brickey

    Mr. Brickey, 43, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brickey understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brickey meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class R operator's license from Colorado.

Ronald K. Coleman

    Mr. Coleman, 70, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coleman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coleman meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D CDL from Kentucky.

Randall L. Corrick

    Mr. Corrick, 27, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Corrick understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Corrick meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from North Dakota.

Raymond G. Gravesandy

    Mr. Gravesandy, 51, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gravesandy understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gravesandy meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.

John T. Green

    Mr. Green, 40, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Green understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Green meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class C operator's license from Texas.

Gregory M. Harris

    Mr. Harris, 53, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harris understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harris meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class C operator's license from Texas.

Bryan R. Hopkins

    Mr. Hopkins, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hopkins understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Hopkins meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
New York.

Kelly M. Keller

    Mr. Keller, 56, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Keller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Keller meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class D operator's license from North Dakota.

Roger S. Kumbalek

    Mr. Kumbalek, 59, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kumbalek understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kumbalek meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Timothy J. Loeschen

    Mr. Loeschen, 27, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Loeschen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Loeschen meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Texas.

Gary K. McCord

    Mr. McCord, 57, has had ITDM since 1977. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCord understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCord meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B operator's license from Indiana.

Joseph L. Miska

    Mr. Miska, 51, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miska understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miska meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Susan L. Mosel

    Ms. Mosel, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Mosel that she understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Mosel meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined
her in 2012 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy.
She holds a Class D operator's license from Wisconsin.

Mark T. L. Owings

    Mr. Owings, 25, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Owings understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Owings meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class C operator's license from Kansas.

Jacob D. Oxford

    Mr. Oxford, 21, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Oxford understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oxford meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.

Derek W. Palmer

    Mr. Palmer, 24, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Palmer understands

diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Palmer meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Massachusetts.

Robert D. Regavich

    Mr. Regavich, 48, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Regavich understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Regavich meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.

Jack W. Schlichting

    Mr. Schlichting, 50, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schlichting understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schlichting meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from Minnesota.

Lonnie H. Shere

    Mr. Shere, 56, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Shere understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shere meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Washington.

Craig A. Trimmer

    Mr. Trimmer, 29, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Trimmer understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Trimmer meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio.

Lisa E. Williams

    Ms. Williams, 51, has had ITDM since 2010. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Williams understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Williams meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined
her in 2012 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy.
She holds an operator's license from Indiana.

Ramon I. Zamora-Ortiz

    Mr. Zamora-Ortiz, 54, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zamora-Ortiz understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zamora-Ortiz
meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.

    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: July 3, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-16888 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P