[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43190-43196]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM12-9-000]

Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01--Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 (Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding Requirements) submitted to the Commission for approval by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Regional
Reliability Standard, PRC-006-SERC-01, is designed to ensure that
automatic underfrequency load shedding protection schemes designed by
planning coordinators and implemented by applicable distribution
providers and transmission owners in the SERC Reliability Corporation
(SERC) Region are coordinated to effectively mitigate the consequences
of an underfrequency event. The Commission also proposes to approve the
related violation risk factors, with one modification, and violation
severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by
NERC.

DATES: Comments are due September 24, 2012.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Morris (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

140 FERC ] 61,056

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Issued July 19, 2012)
    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 (Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding (UFLS) Requirements) in the SERC Reliability Corporation
(SERC) \1\ Region. The Commission also proposes to approve the related
violation risk factors (VRFs), with one modification, and violation
severity levels (VSLs), implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 was submitted to the
Commission for approval by NERC and is designed to ensure that
automatic UFLS protection schemes designed by planning coordinators and
implemented by applicable distribution providers and transmission
owners in the SERC Region are coordinated to effectively mitigate the
consequences of an underfrequency event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SERC amended its Articles of Incorporation on May 9, 2006 to
change its name from Southeastern Electric Reliability Council to
SERC Reliability Corporation. Available at http://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional
%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and
approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by
NERC, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to the Commission may
include Reliability Standards that are proposed by a Regional Entity to
be effective in that region.\3\ In Order No. 672, the Commission noted
that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4). A Regional Entity is an entity that
has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards
under delegated authority from the ERO. See 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and
(e)(4).

    As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of
regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public
interest, as required under the statute: (1) A regional difference
that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard,
including a regional difference that addresses matters that the
continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a regional
Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the Bulk-Power System.

When NERC reviews a regional Reliability Standard that would be
applicable on an interconnection-wide basis and that has been proposed
by a Regional Entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis, NERC
must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability Standard is just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest.\4\ In turn, the Commission must give ``due weight'' to
the technical expertise of NERC and of a Regional Entity organized on
an interconnection-wide basis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(3).
    \5\ Id. Sec.  824o(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements
between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities.\6\ In the order,
the Commission accepted SERC as a Regional Entity organized on less
than an interconnection-wide basis. As a Regional Entity, SERC oversees
Bulk-Power System reliability within the SERC Region, which covers a
geographic area of approximately 560,000 square miles in a sixteen-
state area in the southeastern and central United States (all of
Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Mississippi, and portions of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Florida). The SERC Region is
currently geographically divided into five subregions that are
identified as Southeastern, Central, VACAR, Delta, and Gateway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,060
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01

    5. On February 1, 2012, NERC submitted a petition to the Commission
seeking approval of regional Reliability

Standard PRC-006-SERC-01.\7\ NERC requests approval of the regional
Reliability Standard, associated VRFs and VSLs, and the implementation
plan for PRC-006-SERC-01. NERC requests the standard become effective
over a 30-month window following the effective date of a final rule in
this docket, as provided in NERC's implementation plan, to allow
entities to respond to any changes in UFLS settings. NERC states that
this is the first request for Commission approval of this proposed
regional Reliability Standard and that it will only apply to applicable
registered entities within the SERC Region. NERC also states that the
NERC continent-wide Reliability Standards do not presently address the
issues covered in regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., February 1, 2012
Petition for Approval of Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-
01 (NERC Petition). The proposed new Regional Reliability Standard
is not codified in the CFR. However, it is available on the
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM12-
9-000 and is available on the NERC's Web site, www.nerc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. NERC states that regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
was developed to be consistent with the NERC UFLS Reliability Standard
PRC-006-1.\8\ Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 is designed
to ensure that automatic UFLS protection schemes designed by planning
coordinators and implemented by applicable distribution providers and
transmission owners in the SERC Region are coordinated to effectively
mitigate the consequences of an underfrequency event.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding
Plans Reliability Standards, Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 (May
7, 2012) (approving Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans)).
    \9\ NERC Petition at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. NERC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standard
satisfies the factors set forth in Order No. 672 that the Commission
considers when determining whether a proposed Reliability Standard is
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the
public interest.\10\ NERC states that regional Reliability Standard
PRC-006-SERC-01 adds specificity not contained in the NERC UFLS
Reliability Standard for UFLS schemes in the SERC Region.\11\ NERC
states that regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 effectively
mitigates, in conjunction with Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, the
consequences of an underfrequency event while accommodating differences
in system transmission and distribution topology among SERC planning
coordinators resulting from historical design criteria, makeup of load
demands, and generation resources.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, at PP 323-337 (2006), order on reh'g, Order
No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \11\ NERC Petition at 18.
    \12\ Id. at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. According to NERC, regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
is clear and unambiguous regarding what is required and who is required
to comply. The proposed regional Reliability Standard is applicable to
generator owners, planning coordinators, and UFLS entities in the SERC
Region. The term ``UFLS entities'' (as noted in Reliability Standard
PRC-006-1) means all entities that are responsible for the ownership,
operation, or control of automatic UFLS equipment as required by the
UFLS program established by the Planning Coordinators.\13\ NERC states
that such entities may include distribution providers and transmission
owners. NERC also states that each requirement of PRC-006-SERC-01 has
an associated measure of compliance that will assist those enforcing
the standard to enforce it in a consistent and non-preferential
manner.Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 contains
eight requirements, summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NERC Petition at 7 (citing NERC Reliability Standard PRC-
006-1, available at http://www.nerc.com/files/PRC-006-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator to include its
SERC subregion as an identified island when developing criteria for
selecting portions of the Bulk-Power System that may form islands;
    Requirement R2 requires each planning coordinator to select or
develop an automatic UFLS scheme (percent of load to be shed, frequency
set points, and time delays) for implementation by UFLS entities within
its area that meets the specified minimum requirements;
    Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator to conduct
simulations of its UFLS scheme for an imbalance between load and
generation of 13 percent, 22 percent, and 25 percent for all identified
islands;
    Requirement R4 requires each UFLS entity that has a total load of
100 MW or greater in a planning coordinator area in the SERC Region to
implement the UFLS scheme developed by their planning coordinator
within specified tolerances;
    Requirement R5 requires each UFLS entity that has a total load less
than 100 MW in a planning coordinator area in the SERC Region to
implement the UFLS scheme developed by their planning coordinator
within specified tolerances, but specifies that those entities shall
not be required to have more than one UFLS step;
    Requirement R6 requires each UFLS entity in the SERC Region to
implement changes to the UFLS scheme which involve frequency settings,
relay time delays, or changes to the percentage of load in the scheme
within 18 months of notification by the planning coordinator;
    Requirement R7 requires each planning coordinator to provide
specified information concerning their UFLS scheme to SERC according to
the schedule specified by SERC; and
    Requirement R8 requires each generator owner to provide specified
generator underfrequency and overfrequency protection information
within 30 days of a request by SERC to facilitate post-event analysis
of frequency disturbances.
    9. NERC also explains that the proposed regional Reliability
Standard sets minimum automatic UFLS design requirements, which are
equivalent to the design requirements in the SERC UFLS program that has
been in effect since September 3, 1999.\14\ NERC states that the one
change relative to the existing SERC UFLS program is the addition of a
minimum time delay requirement. The addition allows planning
coordinators to use current UFLS schemes if those schemes meet the
performance requirements specified in the NERC UFLS standard.
Therefore, NERC concludes that the distribution providers and
transmission owners subject to the proposed regional Reliability
Standard will have to make minimal changes to implement their portions
of the UFLS schemes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NERC Petition at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. NERC also proposes VRFs and VSLs for the regional Reliability
Standard, an implementation plan, and an effective date. NERC states
that these aspects were developed and reviewed for consistency with
NERC and Commission guidelines.
    11. NERC proposes specific implementation plans for each
requirement in the regional Reliability Standard, as identified below,
with the regional Reliability Standard becoming fully effective thirty
months after the first day of the first quarter following regulatory
approval. NERC states that the implementation time is reasonable, as it
balances the need for reliability

with the practicability of implementation.
    12. NERC proposes that Requirement R1 of PRC-006-SERC-01 become
effective twelve months after the first day of the first quarter
following regulatory approval, but no sooner than twelve months
following regulatory approval of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1. NERC
states that this twelve-month period is consistent with the effective
date of Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1. Requirement
R2 of PRC-006-SERC-01 would become effective twelve months after the
first day of the first quarter following regulatory approval. NERC
states that this twelve-month period is needed to allow time for
entities to ensure a minimum time delay of six cycles on existing
automatic UFLS relays as specified in Sub-requirement R2.6. Requirement
R3 would become effective eighteen months after the first day of the
first quarter following regulatory approval. NERC explains that this
additional six-month period is needed to allow time to perform and
coordinate studies necessary to assess the overall effectiveness of the
UFLS schemes in the SERC Region. Requirements R4, R5, and R6 would
become effective thirty months after the first day of the first quarter
following regulatory approval. NERC states that this additional
eighteen months is needed to allow time for any necessary changes to be
made to the existing UFLS schemes in the SERC Region. Requirement R7
would become effective six months following the effective date of
Requirement R8 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, but no sooner than
one year following the first day of the first calendar quarter after
applicable regulatory approval of PRC-006-SERC-01. Finally, Requirement
R8 of PRC-006-SERC-01 would become effective twelve months after the
first day of the first quarter following regulatory approval. NERC
states that this twelve-month period is needed to allow time for
generator owners to collect and make an initial data filing.

II. Discussion

A. PRC-006-SERC-01

    13. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we propose to approve
regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. PRC-
006-SERC-01 is designed to work in conjunction with NERC Standard PRC-
006-1 to effectively mitigate the consequences of an underfrequency
event while accommodating differences in system transmission and
distribution topology among SERC Planning Coordinators due to
historical design criteria, makeup of load demands, and generation
resources.\15\ As indicated above, PRC-006-SERC-01 covers topics not
covered by the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
because it adds specificity for UFLS schemes in the SERC Region. For
example, Requirement R1 of the proposed regional Reliability Standard
PRC-006-SERC-01 requires all planning coordinators in the SERC Region
to include their respective ``SERC subregion as an identified island
when developing criteria for selecting portions of the [Bulk-Power
System] that may form islands.'' \16\ This requirement goes beyond the
corresponding requirement in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 that a
planning coordinator study the entire region as an island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NERC Petition at 18.
    \16\ NERC Petition, Exhibit C at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. While we propose to approve regional Reliability Standard PRC-
006-SERC-01, we identify a possible inconsistency between Requirement
R6 of the proposed regional Reliability Standard and PRC-006-1, which
the Commission addressed in Order No. 763. Reliability Standard PRC-
SERC-006-01, Requirement R6 states:

    R6. Each UFLS entity shall implement changes to the UFLS scheme
which involve frequency settings, relay time delays, or changes to
the percentage of load in the scheme within 18 months of
notification by the Planning Coordinator. [Violation Risk Factor:
Medium][Time Horizon: Long-term Planning]

The rationale for Requirement R6 included in the NERC petition is the
following:

    Rationale for R6: The SDT believes it is necessary to put a
requirement on how quickly changes to the scheme should be made.
This requirement specifies that changes must be made within 18
months of notification by the PC. The 18 month interval was chosen
to give a reasonable amount of time for making changes in the field.
All of the SERC region has existing UFLS schemes which, based on
periodic simulations, have provided reliable protection for years.
Events which result in islanding and an activation of the UFLS
schemes are extremely rare. Therefore, the SDT does not believe that
changes to an existing UFLS scheme will be needed in less than 18
months. However, if a PC desires that changes to the UFLS scheme be
made faster than that, then the PC may request the implementation to
be done sooner than 18 months. The UFLS entity may oblige but will
not be required to do so.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NERC Petition, Exhibit A at 14 (emphasis added).

    15. The Commission reads the requirement that UFLS entities
implement a change ``within 18-months'' to establish a ``maximum''
timeframe to comply with a planning coordinator's schedule to implement
changes to UFLS schemes, but also to recognize that the planning
coordinator could establish a schedule for the changes to be
implemented in less time.\18\ The inclusion of a maximum timeframe
would be more stringent than Reliability Standard PRC-006-1,
Requirement R9, which does not contain a maximum timeframe to implement
changes to a UFLS scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In the VSL and VRF analysis in Exhibit E of NERC's
Petition, NERC states that Requirement R6 specifies the maximum time
for a UFLS entity to complete implementation of a major change in a
planning coordinator's UFLS scheme. See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at
16 (``[Requirement R6] specifies the maximum time for a UFLS entity
to complete implementation of a major change in a Planning
Coordinator's UFLS scheme.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. We are concerned, however, that the italicized language in the
rationale NERC provides for Requirement R6 may be incompatible with
Order No. 763. As explained above, we interpret Requirement R6 to mean
that planning coordinators can establish schedules for requiring
changes to UFLS schemes by applicable entities within an 18-month time
frame from the time the entities are notified. Yet, the rationale for
Requirement R6 could result in Requirement R6 being read to allow
applicable entities not to adopt the planning coordinator's schedule if
it is less than 18 months. The Commission is concerned that leaving it
up to applicable entities to determine their schedules for changes
under certain circumstances will cause confusion and result in a lack
of consistency in the application of the regional Reliability Standard.
Allowing each UFLS entity to choose its own timing could harm
reliability or at least defeat the purpose of the planning
coordinator's role.
    17. Our concern is rooted in the Commission's directive in Order
No. 763 concerning PRC-006-1, which held that planning coordinators
should be responsible for establishing schedules for the completion of
corrective actions in response to UFLS events.\19\ In the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for PRC-006-1, the Commission stated that
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 does not specify how soon after an event
an entity would need to implement corrections in response to any
deficiencies identified in an event assessment.\20\ NERC responded that
the time that a UFLS entity has to

implement corrections will be established by the planning coordinator,
as specified in Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1.\21\ In Order No. 763, the
Commission accepted NERC's comments that Requirement R9 requires
compliance with a schedule established by the planning coordinator, but
the Commission stated that NERC's reading of Requirement R9 should be
made clear in the Requirement itself and directed NERC to make that
requirement explicit in future versions of the Reliability
Standard.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 at P 48.
    \20\ Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding
Plans Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 FR
66,220 (October 26, 2011), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,682 (2011).
    \21\ NERC stated:
    The amount of time that a UFLS entity has to implement
corrections will be established by the Planning Coordinator, as
specified in Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1. The time allotted for
corrections will depend on the extent of the deficiencies
identified. The schedule specified by the Planning Coordinator will
consider the time necessary for budget planning and implementation,
recognizing that operating and maintenance budgets normally will not
be sufficient to address major revisions and allowances will be
necessary for inclusion of approved changes in budgeting cycles.
    Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 at P 48 (citing NERC Comments
at 8).
    \22\ Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 at P 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. NERC states that PRC-006-SERC-01 is designed to work in
conjunction with Reliability Standard PRC-006-1.\23\ NERC also
maintains that the regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than
PRC-006-1.\24\ Construing Requirement R6 as imposing a maximum time to
comply with a planning coordinator's schedule, but leaving it up to the
applicable entity to decide whether to take more time (up to 18 months)
than the planning coordinator schedule allows, would be inconsistent
with and, in certain cases, be less stringent than PRC-006-1. First, we
are concerned that allowing applicable entities the flexibility to
determine their own implementation schedule (up to 18 months) for
changes rather than follow the schedule established by the planning
coordinator is inconsistent with the policy underlying Order No. 763
that planning coordinators establish schedules for completing changes
to UFLS programs. If a planning coordinator believes that a change made
pursuant to Requirement R6 should be completed in less than 18 months,
the planning coordinator's schedule should be mandatory. Second, in
certain circumstances, such an interpretation would be expressly
prohibited by the Commission's directive in Order No. 763 concerning
Requirement R9, which gives the planning coordinator the responsibility
of setting a schedule for completing corrective actions to UFLS
programs following event assessments pursuant to Requirement R11 and
R12 of PRC-006-1. Although we acknowledge that changes made pursuant to
Requirement R6 of the regional Reliability Standard will not always be
corrective changes made in response to event assessments pursuant to
the Requirements of PRC-006-1, Requirement R6 is broad enough to
encompass corrective changes, thus creating a conflict between the
regional Reliability Standard and PRC-006-1 under the proscribed
interpretation. Thus, the Commission will not read Requirement R6 as
providing a UFLS entity with the discretion not to follow the schedule
set by the planning coordinator when the schedule is less than 18
months.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NERC Petition at 18-19.
    \24\ Id. at 18.
    \25\ In Order No. 693, the Commission explained that ``while
Measures and Levels of Non-Compliance provide useful guidance to the
industry, compliance will in all cases be measured by determining
whether a party met or failed to meet the Requirement given the
specific facts and circumstances of its use, ownership or operation
of the Bulk-Power System.'' Order No. 693, 118 FERC ] 61,218 at P
253. Similarly, in the immediate proceeding, we consider Requirement
R6 the ``core obligation'' for purposes of determining compliance,
while the related ``rationale statement'' is viewed as providing
useful guidance but not setting compliance obligations. See also id.
P 280 (``the Requirements in each Reliability Standard are core
obligations'' and compliance Measures ``provide useful guidance * *
*'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

    19. NERC states that the VRFs and VSLs for the proposed regional
Reliability Standard were developed and reviewed for consistency with
NERC and Commission guidelines. After reviewing the assigned VRFs and
VSLs for PRC-006-SERC-01 in Exhibit E, the Commission agrees, with one
modification, that the proposed VRF and VSL assignments appear
consistent with Commission guidelines. Therefore, the Commission
proposes to approve, with one modification, the VRFs and VSLs assigned
to the main Requirements in regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-
01.
    20. We propose to direct NERC to modify the VRF assigned to
Requirement R6 from ``medium'' to ``high.'' In the petition, NERC
states that Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1 and Requirement R6 address ``a
similar reliability goal.'' \26\ However, NERC states that while
Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1 addresses UFLS scheme implementation and
has a VRF of ``high,'' Requirement R6 only addresses the timing of
implementation and is, therefore, appropriately assigned a ``medium''
VRF.\27\ Guideline 3 of the Commission's VRF Guidelines states that
``[a]bsent justification to the contrary, the Commission expects the
assignment of Violation Risk Factors corresponding to Requirements that
address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.'' \28\ As NERC notes, Requirement R6 and
Requirement R9 of proposed PRC-006-1 address ``a similar reliability
goal.'' While NERC explains in its filing that the specific topics
addressed by each Requirement are different, the fact that they address
a similar reliability goal suggests that they should be treated
comparably and each given a ``high'' VRF, consistent with Guideline 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 16.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, at P 25 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In addition, in Guideline 5 of the VRF Guidelines, the
Commission indicated that, for Requirements with co-mingled reliability
objectives, ``the Violation Risk Factor assignment for such
Requirements is not watered down to reflect the lower risk level
associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.'' \29\ NERC states in the petition that Requirement R6
combines the lesser risk reliability objective of establishing a
maximum time frame for implementing changes to UFLS schemes with the
higher risk reliability objective of actually implementing changes to
UFLS schemes.\30\ As a result, consistent with Guideline 5, the
Commission believes that proposed Requirement R6 should be assigned a
``high'' VRF. We seek comment on this proposed directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. P 32.
    \30\ See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Implementation Plan and Effective Date

    22. NERC states that the implementation time for the proposed
regional Reliability Standard is reasonable, as it balances the need
for reliability with the practicability of implementation. The
Commission proposes to accept the implementation plan and effective
date proposed by NERC.

III. Information Collection Statement

    23. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\31\ Upon approval of a collection(s)
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these

collections of information unless the collections of information
display a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the
use of automated information techniques.
    25. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01. This is the first time NERC has
requested Commission approval of this proposed regional Reliability
Standard. NERC states in its petition that UFLS requirements had been
in place at a continent-wide level and within SERC for many years prior
to implementation of the Commission-approved Reliability Standards in
2007. Because the UFLS requirements have been in place prior to the
development of PRC-006-SERC-01, the proposed regional Reliability
Standard is largely associated with requirements the applicable
entities are already following.\32\ The proposed regional Reliability
Standard, PRC-006-SERC-01, is designed to ensure that automatic UFLS
protection schemes designed by planning coordinators and implemented by
applicable distribution providers and transmission owners in the SERC
Region are coordinated so they may effectively mitigate the
consequences of an underfrequency event. The proposed regional
Reliability Standard is only applicable to generator owners, planning
coordinators, and UFLS entities in the SERC Region. The term ``UFLS
entities'' means all entities that are responsible for the ownership,
operation, or control of automatic UFLS equipment as required by the
UFLS program established by the planning coordinators. Such entities
may include distribution providers and transmission owners. The
reporting requirements in proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-
006-SERC-01 only pertain to entities within the SERC Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) (``The time, effort, and financial
resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that
would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their
activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records)
will be excluded from the `burden' if the agency demonstrates that
the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to
comply are usual and customary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of
May 29, 2012. According to the NERC compliance registry, there are 21
planning coordinators and 104 generator owners within the SERC Region.
The individual burden estimates are based on the time needed for
planning coordinators to incrementally gather data, run studies, and
analyze study results to design or update the UFLS programs that are
required in the regional Reliability Standard in addition to the
requirements of the NERC Reliability Standard PRC-006-1.\33\
Additionally, generator owners must provide a detailed set of data and
documentation to SERC within 30 days of a request to facilitate post
event analysis of frequency disturbances. These burden estimates are
consistent with estimates for similar tasks in other Commission-
approved Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The burden estimates for Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 are
included in Order No. 763 and are not repeated here.
    \34\ Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
applies to planning coordinators, UFLS entities and generator
owners. However, the burden associated with the UFLS entities is not
new because it was accounted for under Commission-approved
Reliability Standards PRC-006-1, PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average      Total annual
 PRC-006-SERC-01 (Automatic underfrequency load      Number of       Number of     burden hours    burden hours
          shedding  requirements) \34\              respondents    responses per   per response     (1) x (2) x
                                                   annually (1)   respondent (2)        (3)             (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCs*: Design and document Automatic UFLS Program              21               1               8             168
PCs: Provide Documentation and Data to SERC.....  ..............  ..............              16             336
GOs*: Provide Documentation and Data to SERC....             104               1              16           1,664
GOs: Record Retention...........................  ..............  ..............               4             416
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           2,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PC=planning coordinator; GO=generator owner.

    Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Compliance/Documentation) =
2,584 hours.
    Total Reporting Cost for planning coordinators: = 504 hours @ $120/
hour = $60,480.
    Total Reporting Cost for generator owners: = 1,664 hours @ $120/
hour = $199,680.
    Total Record Retention Cost for generator owners: 416 hours @ $28/
hour = $11,647.
    Total Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention) \35\: = $60,480 +
$199,680 +$11,648 = $271,808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The hourly reporting cost is based on the cost of an
engineer to implement the requirements of the rule. The record
retention cost comes from Commission staff research on record
retention requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the SERC Region.
    Action: Proposed Collection FERC-725K.
    OMB Control No.: To be determined.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule proposes to
approve the regional Reliability Standard pertaining to automatic
underfrequency load shedding. The proposed regional Reliability
Standard helps ensure the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System
by arresting declining frequency and assisting recovery of frequency
following system events leading to frequency degradation.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed regional
Reliability Standard and made a determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements, if
accepted, should conform to the Commission's expectation for UFLS
programs as well as procedures within the SERC Region.
    27. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive
Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(202) 273-0873].
    28. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your
comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. For security reasons,
comments to OMB should be submitted by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should include Docket
Number RM12-09 and an OMB Control Number to be determined.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    29. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\36\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\37\ The actions proposed here
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \37\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    30. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \38\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\39\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \39\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \40\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 proposes
to establish consistent and coordinated requirements for the design,
implementation, and analysis of automatic UFLS schemes among all
applicable entities within the SERC Region. It will be applicable to
planning coordinators, generator owners and entities that are
responsible for the ownership, operation, or control of UFLS equipment.
Comparison of the NERC Compliance Registry with data submitted to the
Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that
perhaps as many as 1 small entity is registered as a planning
coordinator and 5 small entities are registered as generator owners in
the SERC Region. The Commission estimates that the small planning
coordinator to whom the proposed regional Reliability Standard will
apply will incur compliance costs of $2,880 ($2,880 per planning
coordinator) associated with the proposed regional Reliability
Standard's requirements. The small generator owners will incur
compliance and record keeping costs of $10,160 ($2,032 per generator
owner). Accordingly, proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-
SERC-01 should not impose a significant operating cost increase or
decrease on the affected small entities.
    32. Further, NERC explains that the cost for smaller entities to
implement regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 was considered
during the development process. The Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
requires a planning coordinator to identify which entities will
participate in its UFLS scheme, including the number of steps and
percent load that UFLS entities will shed. The standard drafting team
recognized that UFLS entities with a load of less than 100 MW may have
difficulty in implementing more than one UFLS step and in meeting a
tight tolerance. Therefore, the standard drafting team included
Requirement R5, which states that such small entities shall not be
required to have more than one UFLS step, and sets their implementation
tolerance to a wider level. Requirement R5 limits additional compliance
costs for smaller entities to comply with the regional Reliability
Standard.
    33. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that the
regional Reliability Standard will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

VI. Comment Procedures

    34. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due September 24, 2012. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM12-9-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    35. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    36. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    37. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    38. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    39. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.

    40. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18009 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6180-6181]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4588-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

North Carolina; 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 Carolina (FEMA-4588-DR), dated March 3, 2021,
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 18, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin A.
Wallace, of FEMA is appointed to act as the

Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02258 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29927-29928]
[DOCID:fr24my06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[IC06-585-001, FERC 585]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

May 18, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and extension of this information collection requirement.
Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier Federal
Register notice of February 24, 2006 (71 FR 9529-9530) and has made
this notation in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by June 26,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. as a point of

reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4650. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings, an original and 14 copies of such comments should be
submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should
refer to Docket No. IC06-587-001.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-Filing,'' and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-
502-8258 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should not be
submitted to this e-mail address.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>. or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:
    1. Collection of Information: FERC Form 585 ``Reporting of Electric
Energy
    Shortages and Contingency Plans under PURPA''.
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    3. Control No.: 1902-0138.
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and extend the
expiration date for an additional three years with no changes to the
existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is
mandatory.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of section
206 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1979 (PURPA)
Public Law 95-617, 92 Stat. 3117. Section 206 of PURPA amended the
Federal Power Act (FPA) by adding a new subsection (g) to section 202,
under which the Commission by rule, was to require each public utility
to (1) report to the Commission and appropriate state regulatory
authorities of any anticipated shortages of electric energy or capacity
which would affect the utility's capability to serve its wholesale
customers; and (2) report to the Commission and any appropriate state
regulatory authority in a contingency plan that would outline what
circumstances might give rise for such occurrences.
    In FERC Order No. 575 (60 FR 4859, January 25, 1995) the Commission
modified the reporting requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(b) to provide
that if a public utility includes in its rates schedule a provision
that: (a) During electric energy and capacity shortages it will treat
firm power wholesale customers without undue discrimination or
preference; and (b) it will report any modifications to its contingency
plan for accommodating shortages within 15 days to the appropriate
state regulatory agency and to the affected wholesale customers, then
the utility need not file with the Commission an additional statement
of the contingency plan for accommodating such shortages. This revision
merely changed the reporting mechanism; the public utility's
contingency plan would be located in its filed rate rather than in a
separate document.
    In FERC Order No. 659, (70 FR 35027-28, June 16, 2006) the
Commission revised its regulations to provide an alternative means for
public utilities to report shortages of electric energy and capacity by
submitting an electronic filing via the Commission's Division of
Reliability's pager system at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>instead of filing with
the Secretary of the Commission.
    The Commission uses the information to evaluate and formulate
appropriate an option for action in the event an unanticipated shortage
is reported and/or materializes. Without this information, the
Commission and State agencies would be unable to: (1) Examine, approve
or modify utility actions, (2) prepare a response to anticipated
disruptions in electric energy and (3) ensure equitable treatment of
all public utility customers under the shortage situations. The
Commission implements these filings requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 294.
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently
comprises 7 companies (on average) subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
    6. Estimated Burden: 511 total hours, 7 respondents (average), 1
response per respondent, and 73 hours per response (average).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents: 511 hours/2080 hours per
years x $112,767 per year = $ 27,704. The cost per respondent is equal
to $3,958.

    Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of section 206 of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1979 (PURPA) Pub. L. 95-
617, 92 Stat. 3117.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7959 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16038]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 10, 2012, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Washington, DC-Silver Spring,
The Ballrooms, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD. The hotel
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Person: Paul Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm.
2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), and follow
the prompts to the desired center or product area. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss the safety and efficacy of new
drug application (NDA) 22-529 (lorcaserin hydrochloride) tablets,
manufactured by Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as an adjunct to diet and
exercise for weight management in patients with a body mass index (BMI)
equal to or greater than 30 kilograms (kg) per square meter or a BMI
equal to or greater than 27 kg per square meter if accompanied by
weight-related comorbidities.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 26, 2012. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before April 18, 2012. Time allotted for
each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by April 19, 2012.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Paul Tran at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-6483 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 54586-54588]
[DOCID:fr22se08-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-430-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Eminence
Enhancement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

September 15, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation's (Transco) Eminence Enhancement Project (Project)
involving installation of additional compression by Transco in
Covington County, Mississippi.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will
use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on October 15, 2008.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Transco provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including how to
participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The proposed project would involve installation of one gas-fired
engine-driven compressor unit consisting of a Caterpillar Model 3616
engine driving an Ariel reciprocating gas compressor. This would be
installed at the existing Compressor Station 77 facility in a new 30 ft
by 50 ft compressor building. Additionally, an engine cooling facility,
gas coolers and misc. gas piping would be installed and/or modified at
the station. This additional compression would provide an additional
46,161 dekatherms per day of incremental storage injection capacity,
thereby allowing six injection/withdrawal cycles per year, an increase
from the currently available two per year. The project would not create
any additional storage or withdrawal capacity.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonjurisdictional Facilities

    There are no non-jurisdictional facilities associated with this
project.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would be contained within
or immediately adjacent to Compressor Station 77, located in the
existing fenced Eminence storage field. Approximately 5.2 acres of the
450 acre field would be disturbed during the construction.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \2\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils
     land use
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands
     cultural resources
     vegetation and wildlife
     air quality and noise
     endangered and threatened species
     hazardous waste
     public safety
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the
environmental information provided by Transco. This preliminary list of
issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     The project may have air emissions and noise impacts.
     Safety of the storage field.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Eminence Enhancement Project. Your
comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please
send in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC
on or before October 15, 2008.
    For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use
to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number CP08-430-000 with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ11.3.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, who have
existing easements from the pipeline, or who own homes within distances
defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground
facilities. By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies,
especially those in Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming
cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process.
Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of
case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors.
Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the
Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the
Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all
other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
    If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to
intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
    The Notice of Application for this proposed project issued on July
1, 2008 identified the date for the filing of interventions as July 22,
2008. However, affected landowners and parties with environmental
concerns may be granted late intervenor status upon showing good cause
by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding which would not be

adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22008 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68405-68407]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0444; FMCSA-2014-0212; FMCSA-2015-0320; FMCSA-
2015-0323; FMCSA-2016-0007; FMCSA-2018-0054]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are applicable on November 15, 2020. The
exemptions expire on November 15, 2022. Comments must be received on or
before November 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0444, Docket No. FMCSA-
2014-0212, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0320, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323,
Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0007, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0054 using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0444, FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2015-0320,
FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, or FMCSA-2018-0054), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit
your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if
there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2013-0444, FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2015-
0320, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, or FMCSA-2018-0054, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click
on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box
on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment
as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2013-0444, FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2015-
0320, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, or FMCSA-2018-0054, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nine individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition
in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on
their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-
year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the
nine applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The nine
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    As of November 15. 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Kevin Beamon (NY)
Joshua Cirilo (MN)
Peter DellaRocca, Jr. (PA)
Marvin Fender (CO)
Donald Horst (MD)
Chad T. Knott (MD)
Louis Lerch (IA)
Kyle Loney (WA)
Curtis J. Palubicki (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0444, FMCSA-
2014-0212, FMCSA-2015-0320, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0007, and
FMCSA-2018-0054. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 15,
2020, and will expire on November 15, 2022.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified ME, as defined by Sec.  390.5; and (4) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the nine exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8). In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for
2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-23806 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


             EPA Meeting on UST Regs at National Tanks Conference
                                March 19, 2012

EPA staff gave a brief explanation of the proposed changes to the UST regulations, explained how to comment on the proposal, and answered questions from states, tank owners, manufacturers, and other interested stakeholders.

Attendees:

Linda Gerber, EPA
Bob Renkes, PEI
Donnie Greenwalt, Wallis Companies
Kevin Kyle, The Wills Group, Inc.
Josh Worth, Wawa, Inc
Bob Minissale, Crompco
Ed Kubinsky, Crompco
Jim Howard, Hess Corp
Patty Leonhardt, Thorntons Inc.
Bjorn Brinkman, EPA R7
Brian Patterson, MVI
David Dodson, Sheetz
Michelle Johnston, Warren Rogers Associates
William Jones, Warren Rogers Associates
Kevin Keegan, Tanknology
Vincent Pereira, Guam EPA
Todd Ferguson, Tanknology
Tom Kenney, EPA Region 5
Shawn Suri, Oneida Tribe of WI
Brian Knapp, API
Kris Shiffer, PA DEP
Margaret Stockdale, EPA Region 7
Johanna Griscik, Carmax Auto Superstores Inc.
Mike Morgan, Practical American Safety Solutions
Bill Truman, EPA Region 4
Erik Sirs, EPA Region 10
Josh Presley, Chickasaw Nation
Chuck Tillman, Choctaw Nation
Patrick Vuchetich, Williams and Company
Ed Haselwood, Haselwood Inc.
Claudette Reed, EPA R3
Erin Knighton, EPA
Lee Davis, AL DEM
Paul Kane, P.E.S.
Alan Cubberley, Circle K
Rainier Viera, Circle K
Danny Murdaugh, PMI
Ken Koon, MO DNR
Heather Peters, MO DNR
Daryl Moore, National Institutes of Health
Don Gilson, Gilson Environmental
Russ Brauksieck, NY DEC
Ron Fulenchek, 7-Eleven Inc.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16892-16893]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0180; Notice 2]

BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Grant.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) \1\ a subsidiary of BMW AG,
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain BMW vehicles equipped with
``run-flat'' tires do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.3(c) and
S4.3(d) of 49 CFR 571.110, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation
vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. BMW filed an
appropriate report, dated November 2, 2010, pursuant to 49 CFR Part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) is a vehicle manufacturer
incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, BMW has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of BMW's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on March 7, 2011, in the Federal Register (76 FR
12410). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System Web
site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2010-0180.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
decision contact Mr. John Finneran, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Summary of BMW's Petition: BMW estimates that approximately 54,200
vehicles equipped with ``run flat'' tires are affected. The affected
vehicle models are certain: Model Year 2008-2011 BMW X5 SAV
multipurpose passenger vehicles, manufactured from February 2, 2008
through October 26, 2010; Model Year 2008-2011 BMW X6 SAC multipurpose
passenger vehicles, manufactured from September 19, 2008 through
October 26, 2010; and 2011 BMW 5-Series, BMW 5-Series Gran Turismo, and
BMW 7-Series passenger cars, manufactured from September 1, 2010
through October 26, 2010.
    BMW explains that the noncompliance is that the tire and loading
information placards on the affected vehicles incorrectly include a
recommended cold tire inflation pressure and size designation for a
spare tire. Because the vehicles are equipped with ``run-flat'' tires
and have no spare tire, the word ``none,'' as required by paragraphs
S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) is required in place of the spare tire size and the
associated recommended cold tire inflation pressure.
    BMW argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. Vehicle owner's are informed via the vehicle Owner's Manual that
if ``RSC'' is stamped on the sidewall of the tire, then the tire is a
``run-flat'' tire.
    2. BMW vehicle owners can contact BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM representatives by telephone 24 hours/day.
These representatives can provide vehicle owners, on a vehicle model
and model year basis, with all available tire sizes and specifications
for the tires originally mounted on their vehicle, including the
installation of ``run-flat'' tires.
    3. For vehicles equipped with BMW AssistTM, passengers
can contact BMW Roadside AssistanceTM representatives
directly from within the vehicle.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Refer to the BMW petition for specific details on the
availability of BMW AssistTM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BMW reported that the noncompliance was brought to their attention
during inspections of vehicles equipped with ``run-flat'' tires. On
October 26, 2010, BMW realized that the affected vehicles do not
conform to FMVSS No. 110.
    BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will have
compliant labels.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of its
vehicles to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 110 is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, and should be granted.
    NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees with BMW that the noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that
the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety in this
case is that there is no effect of the noncompliances on the
operational safety of the subject vehicles in which the vehicle tire
and loading information placards erroneously indicated that a spare
tire was available when, in fact, ``run flat'' tires were installed in
lieu of the spare tire.
    In the agency's judgment, this noncompliance to FMVSS No. 110 will
have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because:
    In the event of a flat with a ``run flat'' tire, the vehicle
operator can continue to operate the vehicle. Instructions concerning
the safe operation of a vehicle with a flat ``run flat'' tire are
available from the vehicle owner's manual as well as BMW Roadside
TM.
    Additionally, all information required for maintaining and/or
replacing the front and rear tires (i.e., tire size designations and
their respective cold tire inflation pressures), as well as the seating
capacity and vehicle capacity weight are correct on the tire and
loading information placard on the subject vehicles.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that BMW has
met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 110 labeling
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
GM's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the subject
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the 54,200 \3\ vehicles that have already

passed from the manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ BMW's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt BMW as a manufacturer from the
notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for
54,200 of the affected vehicles. However, granting this petition
does relieve distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their
control after BMW notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: March 16, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-6850 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P