[Federal Register: February 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6652-6654]
[DOCID:fr10fe10-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

February 3, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER00-1372-006; ER07-496-003.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.; Alcoa Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: Alcoa Power Generating Inc et al request for exemption
from the Triennial Market Power Update Reporting requirements for
Category 2 Sellers for the Northwest Region.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-3103-021.
    Applicants: Astoria Energy LLC.
    Description: Astoria Energy LLC Submits Order 697 C Report.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1822-007.
    Applicants: Indigo Generation LLC, Larkspur Energy LLC, Wildflower
Energy LP.
    Description: Notification of Non-Material Change in Status of
Indigo Generation LLC, Larkspur Energy LLC and Wildflower Energy LP.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-5161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-596-011; ER01-560-017; ER01-2690-015; ER02-
963-015; ER01-2641-017; ER02-2509-012; ER05-524-010; ER03-720-016;
ER02-77-015; ER02-553-015; ER00-840-014; ER01-137-012; ER98-1767-020;
ER99-2992-013; ER99-3165-014; ER94-389-036; ER02-1942-014; ER09-43-004;
ER00-1780-013; ER01-557-017; ER01-559-017.
    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC; Big Sandy Peaker
Plant, LLC; California Electric Marketing, LLC; Crete Energy Venture,
LLC; High Desert Power Project, LLC; Kiowa Power Partners, LLC; Lincoln
Generating Facility, LLC; New Covert Generating Company, LLC; New
Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC; Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.;
Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P.; Tenaska Alabama II Partners, L.P.;
Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd.; Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd.;
Tenaska Georgia Partners, L.P.; Tenaska Power Services Co.; Tenaska
Virginia Partners, L.P.; Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P.; Texas
Electric Marketing, LLC; University Park Energy, LLC; Wolf Hills
Energy, LLC.
    Description: Tenaska MBR Sellers submits quarterly report for the
third quarter of 2009.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0211.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2551-005.
    Applicants: Cargill Power Markets, LLC.
    Description: Cargill Power Markets, LLC submits the notification of
non-material change in status.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0255.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-220-004; ER09-1677-003; ER06-686-004; ER06-
215-004; ER96-2652-059; ER99-4228-012; ER99-4229-012; ER99-4231-011;
ER99-852-013; ER08-589-004; ER08-1397-002; ER99-666-009; ER08-293-004;
ER06-222-004; ER09-712-003; ER09-712-003; ER07-1138-003; ER06-223-004;
ER08-297-004; ER06-736-003; ER99-3693-008; ER08-650-002; ER08-692-002;
ER05-1389-005; ER06-221-004; ER07-645-002; ER02-2263-011; ER01-2217-
009; ER06-224-004; ER08-931-005; ER08-337-006; ER07-301-002; ER10-607-
001; ER10-608-001; ER10-610-001; ER10-609-001; ER10-611-001; ER10-612-
001; ER05-1282-004.
    Applicants: Bendwind, LLC; Big Sky Wind, LLC; DeGreeff DP, LLC;
DeGreeffpa, LLC; CL Power Sales Eight, L.L.C.; CP Power Sales Nineteen,
L.L.C.; CP Power Sales Seventeen, L.L.C.; CP Power Sales Twenty,
L.L.C.; Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc.; Edison Mission
Solutions, L.L.C.; Elkhorn Ridge Wind, LLC; EME Homer City Generation,
L.P.; Forward WindPower, LLC; Groen Wind, LLC; High Lonesome Mesa, LLC;
Hillcrest Wind, LLC; Jeffers Wind 20, LLC; Larswind, LLC; Lookout
WindPower, LLC; Midway-Sunset Cogeneration Company; Midwest Generation,
LLC; Mountain Wind Power, LLC; Mountain Wind Power II, LLC; San Juan
Mesa Wind Project, LLC; Sierra Wind, LLC; Sleeping Bear, LLC; Southern
California Edison Company; Sunrise Power Company, LLC; TAIR Windfarm,
LLC; Walnut Creek Energy, LLC; Watson Cogeneration Company; Wildorado
Wind, LLC; Coalinga Cogeneration Company; Kern River Cogeneration
Company; Mid-Set Cogeneration Company; Salinas River Cogeneration
Company; Sycamore Cogeneration Company; Sargent Canyon Cogeneration
Company; Storm Lake Power Partners I LLC.
    Description: Edison International, on behalf of all of its
affiliates with market based rate authority etc submits notice of
change in status.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0213.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1185-004.
    Applicants: Pace Global Asset Management, LLC.

    Description: Pace Global Asset Management, LLC submits compliance
filing.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0252.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-527-004.
    Applicants: Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.
    Description: Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc submits a
redlined and clean version of its revised tariff to reflect that
Longview Fibre is a Category 1 Seller etc.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0256.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1372-017; ER09-1126-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits a compliance of filing of proposed revisions to its Energy and
Operating Reserve markets.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1110-002; ER09-1114-003.
    Applicants: RRI Energy Florida, LLC; RRI Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of RRI Florida MBR
Companies.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0209.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1307-002.
    Applicants: EnergyConnect, Inc.
    Description: EnergyConnect, Inc. submits revised tariff sheets and
redlined version.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0251.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1619-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits their compliance filing pursuant to FERC's 12/31/09 Order
accepting Tariff Revisions.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-27-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to attachment RR-1 to its Open Access
Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff in compliance
with the Commission directives.
    Filed Date: 01/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0253.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 18, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-35-002.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Refund Report of Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Filed Date: 02/03/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-5033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-183-001.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Otter Tail Power Co et al submits certain revisions to
the Energy and Operating Markets Tariff in compliance with the December
30 Order.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-249-002.
    Applicants: Illinois Power Company.
    Description: Illinois Power Co. et al submits a compliance filing
of revised pages to the Joint Ownership Agreement.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-298-001.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S. LLC.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Company et al submits an
executed Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement et al.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-463-001.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Progress Energy Service Co., LLC submits notice of
cancellation.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0258.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-523-001.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: National Grid submits Sixth Revised Service Agreement
20 for Mass Electric to replace the incorrect Service Agreement
revision submitted on 12/30/09.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-560-001.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company submits errata filing to
Transmission Interconnection Upgrade Agreement among ComEd, Northern
Indiana Public Service Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-574-001.
    Applicants: NRG Solar Blythe LLC.
    Description: NRG Solar Blythe LLC submits the revised FERC Electric
tariff, First Revised Volume 1 of NRG, including a revised citation to
the unpublished letter order granting NRG certain waivers and blanket
authorizations etc.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0261.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-583-001.
    Applicants: Monarch Global Energy, Inc.
    Description: Monarch Global Energy, Inc. submits amended petition
for acceptance of initial rate schedule, waiver and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100203-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-678-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits an errata to the
submission of revisions to the SPP Tariff.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0260.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-704-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits First
Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 185 General Transmission Agreement for
Integration of Resources with Bonneville Power Administration etc.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-705-000.
    Applicants: National Grid Generation LLC.
    Description: National Grid Generation, LLC submits Original Sheet

69 et al to FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 22, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-713-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Progress Energy Carolinas,
Inc.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a Joint Operating
Agreement executed on 2/2/2010, and designated as PJM FERC Electric
tariff Rate Schedule 50 and Carolina Power & Light Company FERC
Electric Tariff Rate Schedule 188.
    Filed Date: 02/02/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100202-0254.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 23, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-14-007.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc submits Notification filing pursuant to Sections 19.9 & 32.5 to its
Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff
etc.
    Filed Date: 01/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100201-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, February 19, 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2885 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26815-26816]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC): Public Meeting

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

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
(MCSAC).

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that MCSAC will hold a meeting on Monday -
Wednesday, May 21-23, 2012. On Monday and Tuesday, May 21 and 22, MCSAC
will consider ideas and concepts to address certain open
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Wednesday, May 23, will be reserved for MCSAC's Cross-Border trucking
subcommittee and the Motorcoach Hours-of-Service (HOS) subcommittee.
All three days of the meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: Time and Dates: The meetings will be held on Monday-Tuesday, May
21-22, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.D.T.),
and on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., E.D.T. The
meetings will be held at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 in the Washington and Jefferson Rooms on
the 2nd floor. The Hilton Alexandria Old Town is located across the
street from the King Street Metro station.
    Copies of all MCSAC Task Statements and an agenda for the entire
meeting will be made available in advance of the meeting at http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor
to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Elizabeth Turner at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
Wednesday, May 9, 2012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. 109-
59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish the MCSAC. The MCSAC provides advice and
recommendations to the FMCSA Administrator on motor carrier safety
programs and regulations, and operates in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App 2).

Recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

    At this meeting, the MCSAC will hear presentations and deliberate
on Task 12-02, soliciting ideas, concepts, and suggestions for
alternative strategies the Agency could pursue to address certain NTSB
recommendations that are classified as ``Open-Unacceptable.''
Specifically, the Agency will focus its efforts and seek strategies to
address 11 such recommendations, which relate to such issues as
measuring tire pressure, inspection procedures for drivers and
carriers, and ensuring that vehicles operated by motor carriers comply
with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on
the date the vehicle was manufactured. These recommendations are as
follows: H-05-003--005; H-08-013; H-09-019--020; and H-09-037--041.

Long-Haul Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program Task

    During the MCSAC's March 2011 meeting, FMCSA tasked the Committee
with designating a subcommittee to provide independent monitoring for
the program (MCSAC Task 11-03). The subcommittee will continue its work
from previous meetings.

Hours-of-Service (HOS) for Drivers of Passenger-Carrying CMVs

    The MCSAC subcommittee will continue its consideration of Task 11-
06, concerning ideas and concepts the Agency should consider in
deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking to amend or revise the HOS
requirements for drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs.

II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard during the last half-
hour of the meetings on Monday and Tuesday and during the last 15
minutes of the meeting on Thursday. Should all public comments be
exhausted prior to the end of the specified period, the comment period
will close. Members of the public may submit written comments on the
topics to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, May 16, 2012,
to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2006-
26367 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., E.T. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: May 1, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-10932 Filed 5-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


will displace the current section 3.3, changing the numbering of
current sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 to 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7,
respectively.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Renumbering detailed in Appendix B of this Proposed Rule.

    Utilization of Surplus Interconnection Service. The Transmission
Provider must provide a process that allows an Interconnection
Customer to utilize or transfer Surplus Interconnection Service at
an existing Generating Facility. The original Interconnection
Customer or one of its affiliates shall have priority to utilize
Surplus Interconnection Service. If the existing Interconnection
Customer or one of its affiliates does not exercise its priority,
then that service may be made available to other potential
interconnection customers through an open and transparent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
solicitation process.

    210. The Commission proposes to add a new section 3.3.1 to the pro
forma LGIP that describes the process for using surplus interconnection
service:

Surplus Interconnection Service Requests

    Surplus Interconnection Service requests may be made by the
existing Generating Facility or one of its affiliates. Surplus
Interconnection Service requests also may be made by another
Interconnection Customer selected through an open and transparent
solicitation process. The Transmission Provider shall provide a
process for evaluating interconnection requests for Surplus
Interconnection Service. Studies for Surplus Interconnection Service
shall consist of reactive power, short circuit/fault duty, stability
analyses, and any other appropriate studies. Steady-state (thermal/
voltage) analyses may be performed as necessary to ensure that all
required reliability conditions are studied. If the Surplus
Interconnection Service was not studied under off-peak conditions,
off-peak steady state analyses shall be performed to the required
level necessary to demonstrate reliable operation of the Surplus
Interconnection Service. If the original System Impact Study is not
available for the Surplus Interconnection Service, both off-peak and
peak analysis may need to be performed for the existing Generating
Facility associated with the request for Surplus Interconnection
Service. The reactive power, short circuit/fault duty, stability,
and steady-state analyses for Surplus Interconnection Service will
identify any additional Interconnection Facilities and/or Network
Upgrades necessary.

    211. The Commission proposes to add a new section 3.3.2 to the pro
forma LGIP that establishes the open and transparent solicitation
process for surplus interconnection service:

Solicitation Process for Surplus Interconnection Service

    If the existing Generating Facility owner elects to transfer
rights for Surplus Interconnection Service to an unaffiliated
Interconnection Customer, it must do so through an open and
transparent solicitation process. The existing Generating Facility
owner must first request that the Transmission Provider post on its
Web site that it is willing to accept requests for Surplus
Interconnection Service at the existing Point of Interconnection.
Such posting will include the name of the existing Generating
Facility, the exact electrical location of the physical termination
point of the Surplus Interconnection Service,

including proposed breaker position(s) within its substation, the
state and county of the existing Generating Facility, and a valid
email address and phone number to contact the representative of the
existing Generating Facility. The existing Generating Facility owner
must provide the Transmission Provider with the System Impact Study
performed for the existing Generating Facility with its request for
posting Surplus Interconnection Service or indicate that such study
is not available.
    After the existing Generating Facility owner requests that the
Transmission Provider post the availability of Surplus
Interconnection Service, the Transmission Provider will also post on
its Web site a description of the selection process for transferring
rights to the Surplus Interconnection Service that will include a
timeline and the selection criteria developed by the existing
Generating Facility owner. The selection process may vary among
existing Generating Facility owners but the existing Generating
Facility owner will choose the winning request after all necessary
studies have been performed by the Transmission Provider. The
existing Generating Facility owner will submit to the Transmission
Provider, for posting on the Transmission Provider's Web site, the
results of the selection process and will include a description of
whose proposal for the Surplus Interconnection Service was selected
and why. After an Interconnection Customer has been chosen, the new
Interconnection Customer will execute, or request the filing of an
unexecuted, interconnection agreement with the Transmission Provider
and Transmission Owner (as applicable) upon completion of all
necessary studies for its new Generating Facility.
4. Material Modification and Incorporation of Advanced Technologies
    212. It is not uncommon for equipment manufacturers to make
technological advancements to equipment while an interconnection
request progresses through the interconnection process since the
process can span several years. Technological advancements to equipment
may achieve cost efficiencies and/or electrical grid performance
benefits. These changes may include, for example, advancements to
turbines, inverters, plant supervisory controls, or may affect a
generating facility's ability to provide ancillary services. However,
the pro forma LGIP does not include clear guidelines on what technology
changes constitute material modifications and how these changes can be
incorporated into an interconnection request. The pro forma LGIP also
does not contain guidance regarding the analysis and modeling for the
incorporation of technological advancements into an existing
interconnection request. The Commission proposes to require that
transmission providers develop: (1) A definition of permissible
technological advancements pursuant to an interconnection request that
the interconnection process can accommodate and (2) an accompanying
procedure that will be used to accommodate the incorporation of
technological advancements to interconnection requests for synchronous
and non-synchronous generating facilities. Further, the Commission
proposes that this definition should contemplate advancements that
provide cost efficiency and/or electrical performance benefits.
a. Existing Provisions and Background
    213. Under the pro forma LGIP, an interconnection customer must
submit to the transmission provider, in writing, modifications to any
information provided in the interconnection request.\251\ An
interconnection customer retains its queue position if the
modifications are either allowed explicitly under the pro forma LGIP or
if the transmission provider determines that the modifications are not
Material Modifications.\252\ The pro forma LGIP directs transmission
providers to commence any necessary additional studies related to the
interconnection customer's modification request no later than 30
calendar days after receiving notice of the request.\253\ If a
transmission provider finds a proposed modification to be material, the
interconnection customer can choose whether to abandon the proposed
modification or to proceed with the modification and lose its existing
queue position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See Pro forma LGIP at Section 4.4.
    \252\ See Pro forma LGIP at Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4.
    \253\ See Pro forma LGIP at Section 4.4.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    214. During the 2016 Technical Conference, some panelists
questioned whether interconnection customers should be able to
incorporate technological advancements into their interconnection
requests as they move through the interconnection study process. The
Commission subsequently solicited post-technical conference comments on
whether technological advancements could be incorporated without
presenting system reliability concerns and causing delays to the
interconnection study process.\254\ Multiple commenters assert that the
interconnection process could benefit from the additional flexibility
to accommodate technological advancements that do not cause significant
reliability issues or timing delays.\255\ Some commenters state that
these advancements should be permissible as long as they do not trigger
the Material Modification provision of the LGIP and do not disrupt
other interconnection requests.\256\ PacifiCorp proposed a formal
procedure for transmission providers to evaluate technological
advancements.\257\ In particular, PacifiCorp's proposal would require
interconnection customers to provide formal notification and a $10,000
deposit for the performance of a technological change study that the
transmission provider would complete within 30 days.\258\ MISO asserts
that a new approach to account for technological advancements would
require manufacturers to provide validation documentation that the
advancement performs equally or better than without the technological
change. MISO further asserts that if a technological advancement would
result in improved performance, in most cases, a transmission provider
study is unnecessary.\259\ Xcel acknowledges that new technologies may
not be appropriately modeled in the existing analytical software, and
states that developing sufficient modeling parameters should be made
clear to interconnection customers' technology vendors.\260\ Xcel
argues that confidentiality issues should not preclude the sharing of
functional specifications sufficient to model the new equipment.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments,
Question 1.13 Docket Nos. RM16-12-000 and RM15-21-000 (June 3,
2016).
    \255\ See, e.g., PacifiCorp 2016 Comments at 3-4; AWEA 2016
Comments at 27; Invenergy 2016 Comments at 18; MISO 2016 Comments at
14; EDF 2016 Comments at 25; NYISO 2016 Comments at 19; ISO-NE 2016
Comments at 20-21.
    \256\ See, e.g., Xcel 2016 Comments at 12-13; MISO 2016 Comments
at 14; EDP 2016 Comments at 14-15; Invenergy 2016 Comments at 18.
    \257\ PacifiCorp 2016 Comments at 3-4.
    \258\ Id.
    \259\ MISO 2016 Comments at 14.
    \260\ Xcel 2016 Comments at 12-13.
    \261\ Xcel 2016 Comments at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    215. With regard to the timing of technological change requests,
most commenters did not identify an appropriate deadline within the
interconnection process beyond which transmission providers could not
accommodate technological advancements. EDF argues that technological
advancements should be accommodated as an interconnection request
proceeds through the LGIP process up until the commercial operation
date, because advancements provide benefits to all customers.\262\
NYISO, on the other hand, asserts that

technological advances and other modifications can be incorporated into
an interconnection request only if they are proposed at appropriate
stages.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ EDF 2016 Comments at 25.
    \263\ NYISO 2016 Comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Proposal
    216. The Commission preliminarily finds that the provisions
regarding material modifications in the pro forma LGIP provide the
transmission provider with significant discretion in determining
whether a modification is deemed material, and that this discretion can
lead to unjust and unreasonable rates, terms, and conditions, and
unduly discriminatory or preferential practices when transmission
providers evaluate technological advancements under the existing
material modification construct.
    217. The Commission thus proposes to require transmission providers
to establish a technological change procedure to assess and, if
necessary, study whether they can accommodate a technological change
request without the change considered to be a material modification.
The Commission proposes that transmission providers include the
technological change procedure in their pro forma LGIPs. The Commission
proposes an approach below for how this new procedure should be
structured and proposes to require that transmission providers use this
approach when developing their technological change procedure.
    218. The Commission proposes that an interconnection customer that
seeks to incorporate technological advancements into an interconnection
request must formally notify the relevant transmission provider. In
order for the transmission provider to determine that a proposed
technological change is not a material modification,\264\ the
interconnection customer's formal technological change request would
include analyses to demonstrate that the proposed incorporation of the
technological advancement would result in electrical performance that
is equal to or better than the electrical performance expected prior to
the technology change. In some instances, a transmission provider may
determine that no additional study is necessary to accommodate a
proposed technological advancement without a loss of queue position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ The pro forma LGIP defines Material Modification as
``those modifications that have a material impact on the cost or
timing of any Interconnection Request with a later queue priority
date.'' See pro forma LGIP at Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    219. In other instances, a transmission provider may require a
study for a proposed technological advancement to not be considered a
material modification. The Commission proposes that, in this scenario,
the interconnection customer should tender an appropriate study deposit
and provide the necessary modeling data that sufficiently models the
behavior of the new equipment and any other required data about the
technological advancement to the transmission provider. The
transmission provider should then provide the study results within 30
days.
    220. Under this proposal, the technological change procedure should
specify what technological advancements can be incorporated at various
stages of the interconnection process and the procedure should clearly
specify which requirements apply to the interconnection customer and
which apply to the transmission provider. The procedure should, for
example, state that an interconnection customer that seeks to
incorporate technological advancements into its generating facility
should submit a formal technological change request. Additionally, the
procedure should specify the necessary information that should be
submitted by the interconnection customer as part of a formal
technological change request and, to the extent practicable, specify
the conditions when a study will or will not be necessary. If a study
is necessary, the procedure should clearly specify the information that
the interconnection customer needs to provide, including study
scenarios, modeling data, and any other assumptions. The procedure
should also clearly indicate what types of information and/or study
results are necessary from the interconnection customer and explain how
the transmission provider will evaluate the technological change
request. In the instance where the transmission provider performs the
study, the interconnection customer may be required to tender a
deposit, and the procedure should specify the amount of the study
deposit and include the timeframe for the transmission provider to
perform the study and return the results to the interconnection
customer. If a proposed technological advancement cannot be
accommodated without triggering the material modification provision of
the pro forma LGIP or be completed through an abbreviated assessment
that does not affect the interconnection customer's queue position, the
Commission proposes to require the transmission provider to provide an
explanation to the interconnection customer. The Commission seeks
comment on reasonable study deposits and time frames.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ In its 2016 Comments, PacifiCorp proposes a $10,000 study
deposit and 30-day timeframe for the study to be performed.
PacifiCorp 2016 Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    221. Consistent with the discussion above, the Commission proposes
to revise Section 4.4.2 of the pro forma LGIP as follows (proposing to
delete italicized text):

    4.4.2 Prior to the return of the executed Interconnection
Facility Study Agreement to the Transmission Provider, the
modifications permitted under this Section shall include
specifically: (a) Additional 15 percent decrease in plant size (MW),
and (b) Large Generating Facility technical parameters associated
with modifications to Large Generating Facility technology and
transformer impedances; provided, however, the incremental costs
associated with those modifications are the responsibility of the
requesting Interconnection Customer; and (c) certain technological
advancements for the Large Generating Facility after the submission
of the interconnection request. Section 4.4.4 specifies a separate
Technological Change Procedure including the requisite information
and process that will be followed to assess whether the
Interconnection Customer's proposed technological advancement under
section 4.4.2(c) is a Material Modification. Section 1 contains a
definition of technological advancements.

    222. Pursuant to this proposal, the Commission also proposes to
require transmission providers to develop a definition of technological
advancements in their LGIPs. This definition should consider
technological changes to equipment that may achieve cost and grid
performance efficiencies. Examples of technological advancements that
fit within these parameters include, but are not limited to, upgrades
to turbines, inverters, and plant supervisory controls.
    223. This proposal should reduce barriers to the implementation of
technological advancements that improve the electrical characteristics
of a generating facility and that perform equally or better than the
performance of previous equipment and/or provide cost efficiencies. The
Commission proposes that transmission providers use sound engineering
judgment to determine whether they can accommodate the proposed
technological changes so that they would not require a material
modification. The Commission proposes to permit interconnection
customers to submit requests to incorporate technological advancements
prior to the execution of the interconnection facilities study
agreement, and the

Commission seeks comment as to whether this is the appropriate stage in
the interconnection process to implement the technological change
procedure.
5. Modeling of Electric Storage Resources for Interconnection Studies
    224. The Commission proposes to require that transmission providers
evaluate their methods for modeling electric storage resources for
interconnection studies, identify whether their current modeling and
study practices adequately and efficiently account for the operational
characteristics of electric storage resources, and report to the
Commission why and how their existing practices are or are not
sufficient.
a. Existing Provisions and Background
    225. Electric storage resources present unique interconnection
challenges because they are able to both receive electricity from the
grid and inject electricity onto the grid. For this reason,
transmission providers must study them in a way that measures their
potential impact as both generation and load. It is not currently clear
to the Commission whether making electric storage resources fit into
the existing procedures for generation and load is the most effective
means of evaluating these interconnection requests. The fact that
generation studies and load studies are often conducted separately
appears to complicate the way electric storage resources are modeled
during the interconnection process and was a source of frustration
among interconnection customers of electric storage resources that
filed post-technical conference comments.
b. Comments
    226. At the 2016 Technical Conference, panelists and staff
discussed the modeling of electric storage resources for
interconnection studies, including potential means for interconnection
studies to better reflect the intended operation of electric storage
resources. The Commission requested comment on whether current
interconnection studies adequately account for the operational
characteristics of electric storage resources in its request for post-
technical conference comments. In response, several commenters note
that two changes would improve the functionality of the interconnection
study process: (1) Changing the way storage is evaluated and modeled to
follow California's ``negative generation'' approach; and (2) allowing
interconnection customers to specify the charge/discharge parameters to
be used by the transmission provider in interconnection studies.\266\
Commenters also recommend that interconnection studies model the
impacts of storage resources under their planned use cases and argue
that they include the operational characteristics of storage and the
benefits it provides for reliability.\267\ AES notes that its software
eliminates the potential for voltage flicker and that transmission
providers should be able to take into account that a particular
interconnection customer can operate without voltage flicker.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See, e.g., ESA Comments at 5, RES Americas Comments at 3.
The Commission notes that RES Americas would prefer a separate
process but alternatively suggests using the negative generation
approach. NextEra Comments at 10-11.
    \267\ Energy Storage Association Comments at 7-8; RES Americas
Comments at 5; California Energy Storage Alliance Comments at 11;
Invenergy Comments at 28; AES comments at 3-4; NextEra Comments at
11; Xcel Comments at 18.
    \268\ AES Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    227. The RTOs/ISOs generally believe that their practices for
modeling electric storage resources for interconnection studies are
adequate. MISO asserts that the generator interconnection process is an
appropriate process to study new storage interconnections and that only
minor changes from that process are necessary for it to study storage
interconnection.\269\ NYISO contends that interconnection studies
currently account for the operating characteristics of electric storage
resources to the extent necessary under the minimum interconnection
standard. However, NYISO states that it has experienced challenges with
the accuracy of modeling information used to evaluate electric storage
resources in the interconnection process.\270\ ISO-NE claims that its
current interconnection studies adequately account for the operational
characteristics of electric storage resources.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ MISO Comments at 23.
    \270\ NYISO Comments at 27-28.
    \271\ ISO-NE Comments at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    228. CAISO's approach to modeling electric storage resources (or
Non-Generator Resources) as ``negative generation'' was identified as a
best practice during the 2016 Technical Conference and in the post-
technical conference comments.\272\ NextEra states that allowing
electric storage resources to provide better information about their
resources for interconnection studies would benefit the study process,
and NYISO indicates that it has experienced challenges with the
accuracy of modeling information.\273\ Both NextEra's and NYISO's
concern suggests that more specific information requirements for
modeling electric storage resources would be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ ESA Comments at 5; RES Americas Comments at 3.
    \273\ NextEra Comments at 11; NYISO Comments at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Proposal
    229. The Commission proposes to require that transmission providers
evaluate their methods for modeling electric storage resources for
interconnection studies, identify whether their current modeling and
study practices adequately and efficiently account for the operational
characteristics of electric storage resources, and provide their
responses to the Commission in comments to this Proposed Rule regarding
why and how their existing practices are or are not sufficient.
Specifically, transmission providers and others should comment on
whether establishing a unified model for studying electric storage
resources would expedite the study process and therefore reduce the
time and costs expended by the transmission providers for studying the
interconnection of electric storage resources. For example, the
negative-generation practice in CAISO may allow transmission providers
to better account for the transitions of electric storage resources
between generation and load and may better enable the use of existing
generator interconnection procedures and agreements due to their
treatment as negative generation instead of load. This approach to
studying electric storage resources may also expedite their
interconnection by allowing the transmission provider to study them as
a single resource and perform one study (as opposed to separate studies
for generation and load impacts). In addition, this approach may also
help ensure the applicability of existing interconnection agreements
and procedures to electric storage resources.
    230. Additionally, commenters should describe what information
electric storage resources should provide that is not already
consistently provided with interconnection requests. Since transmission
providers evaluate electric storage resources using existing processes
for generation and load, it is unclear to the Commission whether the
existing information requirements for new interconnection customers
that want to interconnect electric storage resources are adequate to
capture the operational characteristics of electric storage resources.
Bringing electric storage resources onto the system as efficiently as
possible may enhance competition in the wholesale markets and improve
reliability. If there are approaches to studying electric storage
resources that capture their unique

characteristics and facilitate their interconnection, the Commission
would like to identify those potential improvements as best practices
for all transmission providers.

V. Proposed Compliance Procedures

    231. The Commission proposes to require each public utility \274\
transmission provider to submit a compliance filing within 90 days of
the effective date of the final rule in this proceeding revising its
LGIP and LGIA, as necessary, to demonstrate that it meets the
requirements set forth in any final rule issued in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ A public utility is a utility that owns, controls, or
operates facilities used for transmitting electric energy in
interstate commerce, as defined by the FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e)
(2012). A non-public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with
the reciprocity condition of an OATT may satisfy that condition by
filing an OATT, which includes an SGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    232. Some public utility transmission providers may have provisions
in their existing LGIPs and LGIAs that the Commission has previously
deemed to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIP and pro
forma LGIA. Where these provisions would be modified by the final rule,
public utility transmission providers must either comply with the final
rule or demonstrate that these previously-approved variations continue
to be consistent with or superior to the pro forma as modified by the
final rule. The Commission also proposes to permit appropriate entities
to seek ``regional reliability variations'' or ``independent entity
variations'' from the proposed revisions to the pro forma.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ See, e.g., Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 at
PP 822-827; Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at PP 546-
550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    233. The Commission will assess whether each compliance filing
satisfies the proposed requirements stated above and issue additional
orders as necessary to ensure that each public utility transmission
provider meets the requirements of the subsequent final rule.
    234. The Commission proposes that Transmission Providers that are
not public utilities will have to adopt the requirements of this
Proposed Rule as a condition of maintaining the status of their safe
harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the reciprocity requirement of
Order No. 888.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission on Services by Public Utilities;
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036, at 31,760-
763 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Information Collection Statement

    235. The following collection of information contained in this
Proposed Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\277\ OMB's regulations require approval of
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.\278\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject
to the filing requirements of this Proposed Rule will not be penalized
for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ 44 U.S.C. 507(d) (2012).
    \278\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    236. The reforms proposed in this Proposed Rule would revise the
Commission's pro forma LGIP, pro forma LGIA, and the Commission's
regulations in accordance with section 35.28(f)(1) of the Commission's
regulations.\279\ This Proposed Rule proposes that each public utility
transmission provider will amend its LGIP and LGIA to improve the
interconnection process. The Commission anticipates the revisions
proposed in this Proposed Rule, once implemented, will not
significantly change currently existing burdens on an ongoing basis.
The Commission will submit the proposed reporting requirements to OMB
for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) (2016).
    \280\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    237. While the Commission expects the revisions proposed in this
Proposed Rule will provide significant benefits, the Commission
understands that implementation can be a complex and costly endeavor.
The Commission solicits comments on its need for this information,
whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of
the provided burden and cost estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained,
and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondents' burdens.
    Burden Estimate and Information Collection Costs: The Commission
believes that the burden estimates below are representative of the
average burden on respondents. The estimated burden and cost \281\ for
the requirements contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden hours per Response * $74.50 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from
the Commission average salary of $154,647. Subject matter experts
found that industry employment costs closely resemble the
Commission's regarding the FERC-516F information collection.
    \282\ Any figures labeled as ``Year 2'' should be considered
ongoing response or burden amounts.
    \283\ ($154,647/year)/(2,080 hours/year) = $74.349 per hour and
is rounded to $74.50 per hour.

                                                                        FERC 516F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annual  number  of                              Average burden        Total annual  burden
                                    Number of applicable      responses  per        Total number  of      (hours) and  costs    hours  and total  annual
                                     registered entities        respondent             responses         per  response \283\              cost
                                    (1).................  (2) \282\............  (1) * (2) = (3)......  (4)..................  (3) * (4) = (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue A1--Scheduled periodic        Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 restudies.                                               Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue A2--Interconnection           Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 customer's option to build.                              Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue A3--Self-funding by the       Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A.
 transmission owner.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.

Issue A4--RTO/ISO dispute           Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A.
 resolution.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue A5--Capping costs for         Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A.
 network upgrades.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A.
Issue B1--Identification and        Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--80...........  Year 1-10,080.
 definition of contingent                                 Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
 facilities.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--80...........  Year 1--480.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue B2--Lack of transparency in   Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--80...........  Year 1--10,080.
 the interconnection process.                             Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--80...........  Year 1--480.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue B3--Curtailment concerns....  Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
                                                          Year 2--12...........  Year 2-..............  Year 2--4............  Year 2--6,048.
                                                                                1512.................
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--12...........  Year 2--72...........  Year 2--4............  Year 2--288.
Issue B4--Definition of generating  Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 facility.                                                Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue B5--Interconnection study     Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 deadlines.                                               Year 2--4............  Year 2--504..........  Year 2--4............  Year 2--2,016.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--4............  Year 2--24...........  Year 2--4............  Year 2--96.
Issue C1--Requesting                Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 interconnection service below                            Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
 generating facility capacity.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue C2--Provisional agreements..  Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue C3--Utilization of surplus    Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 interconnection service.                                 Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue C4--Material modification     Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--4............  Year 1--504.
 and incorporation of advanced                            Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
 technologies.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--4............  Year 1--24.
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
Issue C5--Modeling of electric      Non-RTO/ISO (126)...  Year 1--1............  Year 1--126..........  Year 1--80...........  Year 1-10,080.
 storage resources.                                       Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                    RTO/ISO (6).........  Year 1--1............  Year 1--6............  Year 1--80...........  Year 1--480
                                                          Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0............  Year 2--0.
                                   ---------------------------------------------                       -------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................              Non-RTO/ISO, Year 1              276..................                       34,776.
                                                Non-RTO/ISO, Ongoing             64...................                       8,064.
                                                  RTO/ISO, Year 1                284..................                       1,704.
                                                  RTO/ISO, Ongoing               64...................                        384.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the total cost of
compliance as follows: \284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ The costs for Year 1 would consist of filing proposed
changes to the LGIP and LGIA with the Commission within 90 days of
the effective date of the final revision plus initial
implementation. The costs for year 2 represent ongoing requirements
that would persist in subsequent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year 1: $2,590,812 ($20,562/non-RTO/ISO utility), $126,948 ($21,158/
RTO/ISO utility) \285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ Non-RTO/ISO utility costs (Year One): 34,776 hours *
$74.50 = $2,590,812; $2,590,812 / 126 = $20,562. RTO/ISO utility
costs: 384 hours * $74.50 = $28,608; $28,608 / 6 = $4,768.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year 2: $600,768 ($4,768/non-RTO/ISO utility), $28,608 ($4,768/RTO/ISO
utility) \286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ Non-RTO/ISO utility costs (Year 2 and ongoing): 8,064
hours * $74.50 = $600,768; $600,768 / 126 = $4,768. RTO/ISO utility
costs: 384 hours * $74.50 = $28,608; $28,608 / 6 = $4,768.

    Year 1 costs reflect filing of new LGIP and LGIA language with the
Commission, as well as certain efforts to review and revise existing
interconnection procedures. Year 2 represents ongoing costs that the
transmission provider will face on an ongoing basis to fulfill the
directives of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The reforms proposed
in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, once implemented, would not
significantly change existing burdens on an ongoing basis.
    Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.
    Action: Proposed revision to an information collection.
    OMB Control No.: TBD.
    Respondents for Proposal: Businesses or other for profit and/or
not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency of Information: One-time during year one. Multiple times
during subsequent years.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission issues this Proposed Rule
to address interconnection practices that may be resulting in unjust
and unreasonable or unduly discriminatory or preferential rates, terms,
and conditions. The Commission seeks to improve certainty in the
interconnection process, to promote more informed interconnection
decisions by interconnection customers, and to enhance interconnection
processes.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements.
    238. 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated
burden estimate(s) in the Proposed Rule should be sent to the
Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(202) 395-7285]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent
electronically to the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should include
FERC-516D and OMB Control No. 1902-0288.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    239. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \287\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does
not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It only requires
consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to small
entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    240. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size
standards (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a
standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of
employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some
transmission owners will fall under the following category and
associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and
control, at 500 employees.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121
(Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    241. The Commission estimates that the total number of public
utility transmission providers that would have to modify the LGIPs and
LGIAs within their currently effective OATTs is 132. Of these, the
Commission estimates that approximately 43 percent are small entities
(approximately 57 entities). The Commission estimates the average total
cost to each of these entities will be between $20,562 and $21,158 in
Year One and $4,768 in subsequent years. According to SBA guidance, the
determination of significance of impact ``should be seen as relative to
the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and
the impact the regulation has on larger competitors.'' \289\ The
Commission does not consider the estimated burden to be a significant
economic impact. As a result, the Commission certifies that the
revisions proposed in this Proposed Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18
(May 2012), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Environmental Analysis

    242. 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.\290\ The
Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required or the revisions proposed in
this Proposed Rule under section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's
regulations, which provides a categorical exemption for approval of
actions under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the filing of
schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale
of electric energy subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the
classification, practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates,
charges, classification, and services.\291\ The revisions proposed in
this Proposed Rule fall within the categorical exemptions provided in
the Commission's regulations, and as a result neither an Environmental
Impact Statement nor an Environmental Assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ Regulation Implementing National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \291\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Comment Procedures

    243. The Commission invites persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be
adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that
commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 14, 2017.
Comments must refer to Docket No. RM17-8-000, and must include the
commenter's name, the

organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
    244. 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.
    245. 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.
    246. 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.

X. Document Availability

    247. 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.
    248. 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 of this document, excluding the last three digits, in
the docket number field.
    249. 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>
List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates. Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 37

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Dated: December 15, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
Parts 35 and 37 Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows.

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  35.28 by adding paragraph (g)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  35.28  Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (9) Generator Interconnection Dispute Resolution Procedures. Every
Commission-approved independent system operator or regional
transmission organization tariff must contain provisions governing
generator interconnection dispute resolution procedures to allow a
disputing party to unilaterally initiate dispute resolution procedures
under the respective tariff. Such provisions must provide for
independent system operator or regional transmission organization staff
member(s) or utilize subcontractor(s) to serve as the neutral decision-
maker(s) or presiding staff member(s) or subcontractor(s) to the
dispute resolution procedures. Such staff participating in dispute
resolution procedures shall not have any current or past substantial
business or financial relationships with any party. Additionally, such
dispute resolution procedures must account for the time sensitivity of
the generator interconnection process.

PART 37--OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 37 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 551-557; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 31 U.S.C.
9701; 42 U.S.C. 7107-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  37.6 by adding paragraph (l) as follows:

Sec.  37.6  Information to be posted on the OASIS

* * * * *
    (l) Posting of congestion and curtailment data. (1) The
Transmission Provider must post on OASIS information as to congestion
data representing:
    (i) Total hours of curtailment on all interfaces;
    (ii) Total hours of Transmission Provider-ordered generation
curtailment and transmission service curtailment due to congestion on
that facility or interface;
    (iii) The cause of the congestion (e.g., a contingency or an
outage); and
    (iv) Total megawatt hours of curtailment due to lack of
transmission for that month.
    (2) This data shall be posted on a monthly basis by the 15th day of
the following month and shall be posted in one location on the OASIS.
The Transmission Provider should maintain this data for a minimum of
three years.

[FR Doc. 2016-30972 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18303-18304]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1989]

Second Annual Workshop on Clinical Outcome Assessments in Cancer
Clinical Trials; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, in co-sponsorship with the Critical Path
Institute's (C-Path) Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium, is
announcing a public workshop entitled ``Second Annual Workshop on
Clinical Outcome Assessments in Cancer Clinical Trials.'' The purpose
of the public workshop is to provide a forum for collaborative
multidisciplinary discussion to identify opportunities and address
challenges for clinical outcome assessments, particularly patient-
reported outcome (PRO) assessments, in oncology drug development. In
this public workshop, a broad array of international stakeholders
involved in oncology drug development and PRO measurement will provide
perspectives on the role of PRO measures to provide complementary
clinical data on the symptomatic side effects of anti-cancer agents.
Speakers and panelists will explore the utility of information derived
from existing and emerging PRO measures and discuss potential ways to
improve the collection, analysis, and presentation of the data to
support drug development and better inform treatment decisions. In
addition, workshop participants will discuss possible approaches to the
patient-reported assessment of an investigational drug's overall side
effect burden as a clinical trial endpoint. This public workshop will
include speakers and panelists from regulatory agencies, academia,
patient advocacy groups, and the medical product industry.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on April 25, 2017, from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration
date and information.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at the Hyatt Regency
Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD
20814,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Hall, Patient-Reported Outcome
Consortium, Critical Path Institute, 1730 East River Road, Tucson, AZ
85718,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
Valerie Vashio, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-
796-3710, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Clinical outcome assessment (COA) tools are intended to capture how
patients experience a disease and its treatment by assessing symptoms,
function, and other aspects of a patient's health-related quality of
life (HRQL). PRO measures are one important type of COA tool. There is
growing interest in optimizing the use of PRO measures to better
incorporate the patient perspective into oncology drug development.
While PRO measures can be used to evaluate the efficacy of cancer
treatments, there is increasing interest in the use of PRO tools to
assess symptomatic side effects of treatment. New PRO item banks and
libraries are becoming available that can provide needed flexibility to
tailor the PRO assessment to the wide range of side effects seen with
the various mechanistic classes utilized in contemporary drug
development. FDA is interested in gaining feedback on methods to
integrate the patient into the assessment of safety and tolerability of
cancer drugs through systematic patient-reporting of side effects
during clinical trials. This public workshop will discuss standard
clinician reporting of adverse events, the development and
implementation of the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse
Events (CTCAE) assessment tool, and explore different analysis and
presentation methods for longitudinal patient-reported adverse event
data.

II. Registration and Accommodations

A. Registration

    There is a registration fee to attend this public workshop. The
registration fee is charged to help defray the costs of the public
workshop facility, speaker and panelist expenses, audiovisual
equipment, materials, and food. Persons interested in attending this
public workshop must register by April 21, 2017. If time and space
permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be
provided beginning at 8 a.m. Seats are limited, and registration will
be on a first-come, first-served basis.
    To register for the public workshop, please complete registration
online at https://www.cvent.com/events/second-annual-workshop-on-clinical-outcome-assessments-coas-in-cancer-clinical-trials/registration-270d8a5ee3ae4a108938851e2a7d0ea7.aspx. (FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the
Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.) The
costs of registration for the different categories of attendees are as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Representatives..................  $400.
Charitable Nonprofit/Academic.............  $100 (Contact C-Path).

Government................................  $100 (Contact C-Path).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Accommodations

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations.
Attendees making reservations at the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One
Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814, are eligible for a reduced
rate of $249 per night, not including applicable taxes. To receive the
reduced rate, please contact the hotel directly at<PHONE_NUMBER> and
reference the Critical Path Institute April 2017 workshop or book
online at: https://aws.passkey.com/event/15624700/owner/14877/landing?gtid=8d00149fbdf860c0e824aee45de33531.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact the Hyatt Regency Bethesda at least 7 days in advance.

III. Transcripts

    Transcripts will not be available. Presentations and associated
audio files will be available on the C-Path Web site approximately 30
days after the public workshop at https://c-path.org/category/events/.

    Dated: April 12, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-07766 Filed 4-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P