requirements, locally available resources, and customer needs that
prevail throughout the country.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sponsors of the Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning
Process October 12, 2021 Comments at 2.

    15. It likewise is doubtful that many of the problems
highlighted in the NOPR apply to the entire country or even extend
beyond certain RTOs. In the southeast, at least, where there is no
RTO, public utilities added 3,158 miles of new transmission and
6,989 miles of uprates between 2015-2020, representing 12% of all
transmission in the region.\25\ This non-RTO region provided
detailed record evidence that strongly suggests it is managing
transmission expansion and renewable integration as well as or
better than any RTO.\26\ Somehow this evidence evaded discussion in
the NOPR and the Commission, regardless of the record evidence,
seems intent on subjecting all public utilities, even those outside
of the RTOs, to the same planning requirements.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. at 11.
    \26\ See id. at 12-14 (detailing renewable integration in the
southeast on a state-by-state basis).
    \27\ See, e.g., NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at P 3 (``the reforms
proposed in this NOPR would require public utility transmission
providers'' to amend their tariffs) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Even RTOs are calling for the Commission to recognize
regional differences and not to impose uniform federal mandates. The
New England Power Pool, for example, tells us in its ANOPR comments
that ``[t]he Commission should allow ISO-NE, NEPOOL, the
[transmission owners in New England] and the New England States to
continue to have the flexibility to develop solutions in planning,
cost allocation and generator interconnection that work best for New
England . . . .'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ New England Power Pool Participants Committee October 12,
2021 Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. I recognize that there are at least some stakeholders,
particularly in RTOs, that want guidance or direction from the
Commission to address the current or potential lack of stakeholder
consensus for transmission planning reforms. But replacing the
stakeholder process with FERC-driven mandates only pleases the
subset of stakeholders who agree with the mandates. It is another
way to overrule voices in opposition.
    18. The numerous comments in response to the ANOPR requesting
the continued recognition of regional differences underscore one of
my primary concerns. I simply disagree that the record before us
supports the scope and profundity of change the Commission seeks to
impose. Other broad Commission rulemakings have had sufficient
record support to satisfy our statutory obligations. Here, I am
doubtful. I agree with the comments of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
which stated that:

the Commission should seriously consider the gravity of this
undertaking and its potential significant impacts on both the
reliability and the cost of electricity for businesses and consumers
across the country. Many of the policies and procedures subject to
revaluation in this docket have served their intended purposes. They
should not be abruptly jettisoned without a thorough evaluation of
the costs and benefits resulting from any significant transmission
planning and interconnection policy changes.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America October
12, 2021 Comments at 1.

    19. In the same vein, the Large Public Power Council ``asks the
Commission to be careful not to disrupt planning and cost allocation
principles within and outside ISOs/RTO structures that are currently
working, and pursuant to which transmission is being planned and
developed.'' \30\ Again, there is no mention of this argument or the
supporting evidence in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Large Public Power Council October 12, 2021 Comments at 5
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. The NOPR solicits further comment, but it also plainly
anticipates rule changes for which my own review of the record
indicates only partial, or lukewarm, or minimal support. The most
common comment I have seen in the record, and at the task force
meetings, as I have already highlighted above, is some variation of
``regional planning is a good idea, and reform is needed, but please
do not tell us what to do.'' Well, here are 450 pages of the
Commission proposing to tell you what to do.
    21. I freely acknowledge that the NOPR includes several
potentially reasonable ideas for reform. But that is not the test
under section 206 of the FPA. We are not the Good Ideas Commission.
We must have substantial record evidence that the existing rate is
unjust and unreasonable. We must find that the current planning
processes are so unacceptable that the existing system essentially
must be scrapped. We must also have record evidence that the
replacement rate--the final rule to follow the NOPR--is just and
reasonable. We owe it to the jurisdictional entities and the
ratepayers to assure ourselves that each of the prescriptive
requirements we seek to impose are actually necessary to ensure a
just and reasonable, non-discriminatory replacement rate. I
certainly do not see the required evidentiary support in the record
we have compiled to date and I am skeptical that I will ever see it.
    22. Every single party with an interest should file in this
docket. And many parties will. The sheer scope of the NOPR means
that there is likely to be at least some support in the record for
just about anything. I must therefore underscore that it is critical
for parties filing comments in response to the NOPR to be direct and
clear. This can be as simple as styling comments as ``Comments in
Opposition'' when the filing party opposes any significant part of
the NOPR. For example, if you are one of the numerous parties that
filed comments in the ANOPR proceeding requesting that ``[i]n any
final rule that comes out of this rulemaking proceeding the
Commission should allow for regional variations and flexibility in
compliance for RTO/ISO regions,'' \31\ or for

non-RTO regions, then I strongly suggest that you file ``Comments in
Opposition'' to the NOPR. The NOPR appears to anticipate only
limited regional flexibility.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ New England Power Pool Participants Committee October 12,
2021 Comments at 7.
    \32\ See NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at PP 183, 355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. I further specifically request itemized lists from each
commenting party indicating whether it supports, opposes, or
abstains as to each of the NOPR's preliminary findings and proposed
reforms. The Commission's ultimate findings cannot rest merely on a
tally of votes, but the scope of this proceeding would make such
basic summaries of the comments immensely helpful and will aid the
Commission in its review of the (already) voluminous record.
    24. To the extent possible, every part of a comment should
directly respond to a particular preliminary finding or proposal in
the NOPR. The ANOPR comments have been filed and reviewed. The time
for generic comments, ``principles'' of planning, the voicing of
general support and the like is over and such comments will be
nearly without value in the face of page after page of detailed,
specific preliminary findings and proposed requirements. Do you
support the finding or not? Do you support the proposal or not?
    25. And in voicing your support or opposition, I also remind
commenting parties to submit hard data whenever possible, including
in affidavits, to help the Commission meet--or not--both of the
required legal showings for this section 206 proposal (that existing
rates are unjust and unreasonable, and that the proposed replacement
rate is just and reasonable). I am fully aware that parties have
limited resources to comment on the Commission's generic
proceedings. And while the scope of this NOPR will inevitably make
this an expensive and burdensome endeavor for commenters, I urge you
not to rest solely on your ANOPR comments. Support or opposition to
the specific proposals in the NOPR is necessary. It will be worth
the effort. After all, the only thing at stake in this proceeding is
nearly everything connected with transmission planning.
    26. Parties should remember that this is not the final rule. The
Commission can issue a final rule that contains any provision based
on substantial evidence and that is a ``logical outgrowth'' \33\ of
the provisions in today's proposed rule. That gives wide berth for
any number of ultimate outcomes. In other words, this rule, when
finalized, could be substantially different. Given what is at stake,
be certain to inform the Commission of your positions on every
element of the NOPR that could possibly be of concern to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 352 (D.C.
Cir. 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. In this regard, I strongly object to our 75- and 30-day
comment and reply periods. Commenting parties presumably do not have
hundreds of hours to wade through 450 pages of detailed proposals
and to marshal evidence and legal argument for or against every
potential change. I am not sure how the same Commission that just
set up an Office of Public Participation thinks anyone can
reasonably comment on every detail in this tome in 6 months, let
alone 75 days. In another proceeding today, we provide RTOs with 6
months to file reports on potential ``modernizing'' reforms to
electricity markets, yet here, where no less than the entirety of
transmission planning is at stake, we suddenly are in a rush.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Modernizing Wholesale Elec. Mkt. Design, 179 FERC ]
61,029 at P 1 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Do not forget that we are also actively considering
interconnection queue reforms, albeit separately, which might be an
even greater priority. If we are going to propose comprehensive
transmission planning changes in a rulemaking, regional planning and
transmission interconnection queue reform should not be considered
in silos.
    29. While I think this NOPR is a mistake, I am happy to be
convinced that particular reforms are justified by sound legal
argument and solid record evidence. Where reform is needed to ensure
just and reasonable rates and reliable service, and the reform
itself is just and reasonable, I can be persuaded that it is worthy
of support. I nevertheless reiterate my strong preference that we
allow public utilities to file their own transmission planning
solutions under FPA section 205. The Commission does not need to
issue rules to change everything. Sometimes it is better to build
incrementally to improve the current system, rather than to scrap
everything and start from scratch. In my view, if an RTO or public
utility wants to ``enhance'' its regional planning, it can figure
out how to do so. And if the Commission really believes that we
cannot rely on public utilities to seek more efficient transmission
planning of their own volition, my second option would be to issue
section 206 orders requiring the RTOs to show cause why their
existing transmission planning processes are just and reasonable.
Whether you agree or disagree with these alternative procedural
vehicles for change, please say so in your comments.
    30. I conclude with a note of caution. A transmission planning
revolution opposed by half of the country risks becoming a
transmission planning civil war. The Commission should not cram
``reforms'' down the throats of opponents on issues of such deep
division, such as whether we can force utilities in unwilling states
to consider the transmission needs of other states' policy
aspirations. The result will be protracted proceedings, litigation,
and risk. Who is going to fund a transmission project in such an
environment, in the face of the perpetual risk that it might have
its costs ``reallocated''?
    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Danly,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Commissioner.

United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission
Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection

Docket No. RM21-17-000

(Issued April 21, 2022)

CHRISTIE, Commissioner, concurring:

    1. The broad purpose of this Commission's oversight of
transmission planning under the Federal Power Act (FPA) is to
provide consumers with reliable power at just and reasonable rates.
I am voting for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) because I
believe it contains some very good proposals that could protect
consumers from paying unjust and unreasonable rates for transmission
service while also supporting the delivery of reliable power to
those consumers. I also believe it comports with our legal authority
under the FPA.
    2. First, the legal framework: While the FPA gives this
Commission authority over ``the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce,'' \1\ the Commission has no authority to
encroach on matters regulated by the states.\2\ The planning,
approval and siting of the generation resources necessary to meet
the needs of customers in a state are under the regulatory authority
of the states, not the Commission.\3\ States can prefer, mandate or
subsidize specific types of generation resources, but the Commission
cannot use its authority over transmission to pressure, steer or
require regional planning entities to act as the Commission's agents
and do indirectly what the Commission cannot do directly. The
Commission is not a national integrated resource planner. Order No.
1000, to its credit, recognized this clear delineation between
federal and state authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1).
    \2\ Id. Sec.  824(a).
    \3\ Id. Sec.  824(b)(1).
    \4\ Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission
Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ]
61,051, at P 154 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC
] 61,132, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 1000 -B, 141
FERC ] 61,044 (2012), aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC,
762 F.3d 41 (DC Cir. 2014) (``[T]he regional transmission planning
process is not the vehicle by which integrated resource planning is
conducted; that may be a separate obligation imposed on many public
utility transmission providers and under the purview of the
states.'') (emphases added); see also id. PP 107, 156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Further, under the FPA our authority over transmission
planning and cost allocation must ensure that wholesale transmission
rates are not unjust and unreasonable.\5\ We also have the authority
to promote the reliability of the bulk power grid.\6\ Those are
consumer protection functions, not a license to promote the policy
goals of any presidential administration or of any corporate or
special-interest group that have not been enacted into law in the
FPA or any other federal statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 16 U.S.C. 824e(a).
    \6\ Id. Sec.  824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. With that legal framework in mind, I am voting in favor of
issuing this NOPR at this time and in this form because, on the
whole, I find the current draft is consistent with our authority
under the FPA and contains some important and constructive proposals
that will serve the consumer protection goals of just and reasonable
rates and reliability.
    5. For example, and as described more fully below, this NOPR
will formally put the states--for the first time--at the center of
regional transmission planning and cost allocation decision-making
for policy-driven projects in all regional transmission entities,

if the states choose.\7\ As another valuable example, also described
below, the NOPR will shift the risk of financing policy-driven
projects from consumers back to developers, where it should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ States have long played an informal advisory and advocacy
role through organizations such as the Organization of PJM States,
Inc. (my alma mater) and the Organization of MISO States. In
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) and ISO New England Inc. states
have played what could be perhaps described as a more formal role in
the decision-making processes of the regional entity, through the
SPP Regional State Committee and the New England States Committee on
Electricity, respectively. In single-state RTOs/ISOs such as New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) and California
Independent System Operator Corporation, state policies and policy-
makers already heavily influence transmission planning and cost
allocation. See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 178 FERC ]
61,179 (2022) (Christie, Comm'r, concurring) (``The specific
[transmission] projects at issue in this proceeding are designed to
implement the public policies of the State of New York, which are
ultimately the responsibility of New York's elected legislators. . .
. NYISO is a single-state ISO that is attempting to act in
accordance with the public policies of the state.''). The states, as
sovereign entities, must choose to embrace the heightened role
offered by this NOPR; no state can be compelled to do so, as the
NOPR makes clear. Building for the Future Through Electric Regional
Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator
Interconnection, 179 FERC ] 61,028, at P 308 (2022) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Let me also emphasize that this is a NOPR--the ``P'' stands
for ``Proposed''--it is not a final rule. This is only another step
in a long process. I look forward to reviewing the comments reacting
to it, which I suspect will come in significant quantities. My vote
on any final rule will, of course, be based on the text of that
final rule. I will not support any final rule that exceeds our FPA
authority and/or threatens to cause unjust and unreasonable rates to
consumers.
    7. When we issued the ANOPR last summer,\8\ I said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Building for the Future Through Electric Regional
Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator
Interconnection, 176 FERC ] 61,024 (2021) (Christie, Comm'r,
concurring, at P 5).

This ANOPR contains a number of good proposals, some potentially
good proposals (depending on how they are fleshed out), and frankly,
some proposals that are not--and may never be--ready for prime time,
or could potentially cause massive increases in consumers' bills for
little to no commensurate benefit or inappropriately expand the role
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of federal regulation over local utility regulation.

    Fortunately, this NOPR contains some very good proposals and
leaves out the worst of the ``not ready for prime time'' ideas of
the ANOPR. While it still contains some features I would not
choose,\9\ on balance I am comfortable in voting for it in this form
and putting it out for additional comment. Here are some of the best
features of this NOPR:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, I agree with Commissioner Danly's dissent that
many of the specific long-term planning directives proposed in the
NOPR may be far too prescriptive and may need to be revised in any
final rule to permit more regional variation and flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. First, it leaves unchanged the planning criteria and cost
allocation frameworks for Reliability and Economic projects.\10\
Reliability and Economic projects are the meat and potatoes of
regional transmission planning. These categories of projects are, by
definition, integral to the primary duty of utilities to serve
retail customers (load). Reliability projects are essential to keep
the lights on. Economic projects are constructed to reduce
quantifiable and definable congestion costs. When these projects are
needed, they should be expeditiously built.\11\ The NOPR wisely does
not disturb existing criteria for timely planning, constructing and
paying for these two categories of projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at PP 3, 89, 314.
    \11\ I recognize that, with regard to projects to relieve
congestion costs, in some circumstances there may be cheaper
solutions available through new builds of generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Second, the NOPR proposes to create a separate category of
projects, which we can label ``Long-Term Regional Transmission
Facilities,'' \12\ or ``LTRT projects.'' This new category replaces
Order No. 1000's ``public policy projects.'' \13\ As with these
public policy projects, the new category of LTRT projects are mostly
driven, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by public
policies, such as projects that would accommodate a state's
legislated preferences for certain resources, or projects that could
accommodate generation growth and retirements resulting from states'
implementation of their own integrated resource plans (IRP), or
corporate goals recognized in state utility regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at P 4 & n.6; see also id. n.507.
    \13\ Order No. 1000 described these types of projects as those
that address ``transmission needs driven by Public Policy
Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. For this new category of LTRT projects, the NOPR proposes to
require a planning process extending out 20 years, based on the
premise that a 20-year projection of the expected generation mix,
costs of generation, and/or load has validity. Based on my
experience as a state regulator with IRPs and computer models
purporting to predict the future two or more decades down the road,
I regard 20-year projections of this sort as, at best, occasionally
interesting, but they certainly provide no basis whatsoever for
saddling consumers with the costs of a billion-dollar transmission
line. However, while this NOPR does propose to require a 20-year
planning process for LTRT projects, it does not propose to require
that any individual LTRT project or group of projects must be
approved for inclusion in any regional transmission expansion plan.
Indeed, there are no mandated LTRT projects in this NOPR, nor any
planning-cycle quotas that regional entities must meet for including
these types of projects in regional plans.
    11. Even more importantly though, for these LTRT projects, the
NOPR proposes to require the regional planning entities to consult
with and seek the agreement of the relevant states to both the
selection criteria for these projects and to the regional cost
allocation arrangements. State approval is especially important in a
multi-state region, where different states have different policies.
The NOPR proposes to provide the maximum opportunity for creativity
and flexibility to the states and regional entities in developing
the process for designing and approving regional selection criteria
and cost allocation arrangements. States can agree to an ex ante
formula for regional cost allocation of these types of projects--
such as, for example, the ``highway-byway'' formula approved by the
SPP Regional State Committee--or states can agree to a process for a
project-by-project agreement on cost allocation among one or several
states--such as, for example, the State Agreement Approach in PJM--
or states may choose some combination of both.\14\ States in a
multi-state RTO or ISO can even agree to defer the decision on cost
allocation to the governing board of the RTO/ISO.\15\ The result is,
while we are proposing to require regional planning entities to
study and evaluate a broad, forward-looking array of information--
including information addressing states' individual energy policies
and goals--any projects identified through this new process will not
be built, or more importantly, paid for by consumers, until the
states representing such consumers have agreed that such projects
are indeed needed and wanted by those same consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at PP 302-303, 305.
    \15\ Id. PP 305, 307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. And let me emphasize two points: First, as stated above, the
Commission cannot impose a preference for certain types of
generation nor require regional entities to plan transmission
designed to prefer or facilitate one type of generation over
another. Second, regardless of any ultimate cost allocation
arrangement agreed to in a regional entity, no individual state's
consumers can be forced to bear the costs of another state's policy-
driven project or element of a project against its consent.\16\ That
would be inconsistent with the cost-allocation principles of Order
No. 1000, which this NOPR explicitly proposes to preserve.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., id. PP 302, 312.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. States did not join RTOs \18\ to pay for other states'
public policies or to pay for the public policy goals of huge
multinational corporations or asset managers.\19\ States joined to
provide their retail consumers with the promised benefits of lower
transmission costs and strengthened reliability through regional
planning of core Reliability projects. Some may say that state
regulators should have no more special right to consent to planning
criteria and cost allocation for these projects than other
stakeholders in the RTO/ISO. But states are not just
``stakeholders.'' State regulators have the duty to act in the
public interest and states alone are sovereign authorities with
inherent police powers to regulate utilities through their
designated state officers. The FPA itself explicitly recognizes
state authority. So it is perfectly fitting for state regulators to
have the

important roles proposed in this NOPR, without preempting the
regional planning entities from seeking additional input through
their existing stakeholder processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ I am aware that states qua states do not join RTOs/ISOs.
Rather, they use their regulatory power to allow or require their
regulated transmission-owning utilities to join.
    \19\ See, e.g., Google, A Policy Roadmap for 24/7 Carbon-Free
Energy (Apr. 14, 2022), https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/a-policy-roadmap-for-achieving-247-carbon-free-energy; see also BlackRock, Inc., 179 FERC ] 61,049 (2022)
(Christie, Comm'r, concurring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The bottom line for me is this: I believe that elevating the
role in planning and cost allocation of state regulators--who are,
as a group, deeply concerned about the monthly bills paid by
consumers, of which transmission is a rapidly growing component--
will make it more likely, not less, that necessary transmission can
get built while ensuring that rates resulting from these types of
policy-driven projects will not be unjust and unreasonable, which
they clearly have the potential to be.
    15. There is a third feature of this NOPR I also find very
important. For LTRT projects the NOPR proposes to end the
Commission's long practice of awarding, as an incentive, cost
recovery for Construction Work in Process (CWIP); instead it will
propose to require the booking of these pre-service costs as
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC).\20\ CWIP is
the award of cost recovery of construction costs during the pre-
construction and construction phases to the developer. CWIP is, of
course, passed through as a cost to consumers, making consumers
effectively an involuntary lender to the developer. By contrast,
AFUDC is booked during the pre-service phases, but cannot be
recovered from customers until the project is completed and actually
serving customers, i.e., ``used and useful.'' The NOPR proposal is
simply in keeping with traditional good utility ratemaking
principles. Booking these costs as AFUDC also recognizes the reality
that just because an LTRT project is selected for a regional plan,
it still has to obtain all state siting, certificate of public
convenience and necessity and other, including environmental,
approvals, and survive what may be the subsequent litigation, before
it is actually built.\21\ Consumers should be protected from paying
CWIP costs during this potentially long period before a project
actually enters service, if it ever does. This NOPR proposal
represents a major step forward in consumer protection and is a big
reason I am voting for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at P 333 & n.530.
    \21\ See e.g., Nat'l Wildlife Refuge Ass'n v. Rural Utils.
Serv., Nos. 21-cv-096-wmc & 21-cv-306, 2021 WL 5050073 (W.D. Wis.
Nov. 1, 2021) (enjoining on environmental grounds construction of a
segment of a transmission project intended to bring wind-generated
power from generators in Iowa to Wisconsin); see also Clark Mindock,
Wis. Judge Blocks $500M Power Line From Wildlife Refuge, LAW360
(Mar. 2, 2022), https://www.law360.com/articles/1469697 (``The CHC
Project is a proposed 102-mile high-voltage transmission line in the
Midwest that was proposed as a way of connecting parts of Milwaukee
and Chicago to cheap wind power by connecting Dubuque, Iowa, to
southwestern Wisconsin.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Finally, let me note again that this is a NOPR--a continuing
work in progress with more work ahead. For example, the section on
planning of local projects \22\ seeks to address a concern expressed
by many commenters, that local projects may not be getting
sufficiently vetted by regional planning entities. In response, the
NOPR essentially proposes PJM's procedures for vetting and
transparency of local projects, but I welcome additional comment
from other regional entities as to whether there are more conducive
measures for such vetting that may fit their own regions better.
Most importantly, on the broader issue of whether local projects are
being properly scrutinized, as a former state regulator who sat on
scores of local-project cases, I would point out that no local
project is going to be built unless a state agency approves a
certificate or its equivalent. While the commenters note that
procedures differ greatly from state to state, and some state
utility commissions have more authority than others,\23\ there is no
question that states have within their inherent police powers the
authority to regulate utilities and that includes the power to vet
local projects both as to need and cost before approving them, just
as states have the siting authority. If states are not using these
powers to vet fully such local projects, they should review their
own state laws and procedures. And if states believe they need more
information from the RTOs/ISOs to make more informed decisions in
their vetting processes, please comment on what additional
information would be helpful for the RTOs and ISOs to provide.
States should be a full partner in the process for vetting and
approving local projects and I invite comment on how to strengthen
state oversight of these projects to get the best deal for the
consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at PP 383-415.
    \23\ See, e.g., Ohio Consumers' Counsel Comments at 13
(explaining that the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) does not review
local projects ``for need, prudence, or cost efficiency''); Ohio
Consumers' Counsel Reply Comments at 8 (``the OPSB rejected [Ohio
Consumers' Counsel's] recommendation that the OPSB report to the
General Assembly that the state legislature should pass new
statutory authority for OPSB that would require the agency to
regulate the siting of, need for and cost-effectiveness of any
proposed new transmission facilities in Ohio rated at 69 kV and
above.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons cited above, I concur in the issuance of the
NOPR.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark C. Christie,

Commissioner.

United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission
Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection

Docket No. RM21-17-000

(Issued April 21, 2022)

PHILLIPS, Commissioner, concurring:

    1. I concur in today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to
emphasize the importance of our action today and to call attention
to the work that remains. I believe today's NOPR represents a
critical first step toward ensuring a 21st century electric grid
that is capable of reliably and affordably accommodating new
generation.
    2. Most commenters urge the Commission to reexamine the
transmission planning and cost allocation policies adopted in Order
No. 1000 over a decade ago.\1\ While Order No. 1000 was well
intentioned, commentors argue that it fell short of its goal to spur
competitive transmission buildout. Under section 206 of the Federal
Power Act,\2\ the Commission must ensure that transmission rates are
just and reasonable. If there are deficiencies in the Commission's
existing regional transmission planning and cost allocation
requirements, we must endeavor to remedy those deficiencies. For
this reason, I support the NOPR's proposal to revisit our existing
policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission
Owning and Operating Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ]
61,051 (2011), order on reh'g, Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ] 61,132,
order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 1000-B, 141 FERC ]
61,044 (2012), aff'd sub nom. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762
F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. This NOPR acknowledges the facts on the ground. It is an
inescapable fact that our resource mix is changing, which is a key
factor leading to a greater need for transmission. Due in large part
to economies of scale, the cost of renewable energy has fallen
rapidly over the last decade while the demand for those resources
has increased.\3\ As of the end of 2020, there were over 800 GW of
wind, solar, and energy storage capacity seeking interconnection in
the United States.\4\ That figure has now risen to 1,300 gigawatts
of wind, solar and storage capacity proposed for interconnection as
of the end of 2021.\5\ At the same time as the resource mix is
changing, severe weather events and wildfires are becoming more
frequent and extreme.\6\ These are just a few of the factors
contributing to a greater need for expansion of our nation's
grid.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instance, after an 85% cost decline over the past
decade, solar photovoltaic systems are among the most cost-
competitive energy resources in the market. See Deloitte, 2022
Renewable Energy Outlook, https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/energy-and-resources/articles/renewable-energy-outlook.html.
    \4\ Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking
Transmission Interconnection As of the End of 2020, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, at 22 (May 2021).
    \5\ Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking
Transmission Interconnection As of the End of 2021, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, at 3 (April 2022).
    \6\ As outlined in the November 2021 FERC-NERC-Regional Entity
Staff Report on Winter Storm Uri, interregional transfers played a
critical role in helping MISO and SPP compensate for generation
outages during the event. The February 2021 Cold Weather Outages in
Texas and the South Central United States, FERC, NERC and Regional
Entity Staff Report, at 98 (November 2021).
    \7\ See National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC) Comments at 17 (``Because certain clean energy resources are
diffuse by nature, meaning the resources exist at disparate
locations and cannot simply be placed near existing load centers,
new transmission facilities may need to be developed to gather and
transport energy from generation rich areas to load.''); Harvard
Electricity Law Initiative Comments at 17 (``Transmission is needed
to connect these location-constrained resources and to ensure that
the system remains reliable with a larger share of intermittent
generation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The record here appears to show that transmission expansion
is increasingly occurring in a piecemeal and inefficient fashion
outside of the regional transmission

planning process, which may not be cost-effective for consumers in
the long run.\8\ While commenters' views vary on how best to address
this problem, nearly all commenters endorse some form of proactive
planning for the future resource mix and demand.\9\ I believe the
NOPR proposal to require long-term scenario planning, including
accounting for extreme weather events, is necessary to maintain the
reliability of the grid and to ensure that transmission costs are
just and reasonable. I also note that while this NOPR proposes to
require the evaluation of benefits of long-term regional
transmission facilities over a 20-year time horizon, it does not
propose to prescribe any particular definition of ``benefits'' or
``beneficiaries,'' nor require use of any specific benefits.\10\
Instead, we continue to acknowledge the benefits of regional
flexibility. Nor does it propose to require that transmission
providers select any particular transmission projects, instead
proposing to provide transmission providers the flexibility to
propose the selection criteria that they, in consultation with their
stakeholders and states, believe will ensure that more efficient or
cost-effective long-term regional transmission facilities ultimately
are selected.\11\ And I support the proposal to require transmission
providers to consult with and incorporate states' views in project
selection and cost allocation. I invite comment on the value of such
state involvement for increasing the likelihood that those
facilities are sited and ultimately developed with fewer costly
delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Building for the Future Through Electric Regional
Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator
Interconnection, 179 FERC ] 61,028, at P 38 (2022) (NOPR)
(discussing the dramatic increase in cost, size, and scope of
interconnection-related network upgrades).
    \9\ See Americans for a Clean Energy Grid Reply Comments,
Appendix A (listing 174 commenters).
    \10\ See NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,028 at P 183.
    \11\ Id. P 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. I also strongly support the NOPR proposal for greater
consideration of dynamic line ratings and advanced power flow
control devices in regional transmission planning processes. Grid-
enhancing technologies (GETs) can optimize our existing transmission
infrastructure and provide cost-effective solutions for consumers.
For example, by allowing the measurement of transmission capacity in
real-time, dynamic line ratings can provide net benefits to
customers by allowing increased power flow and reducing congestion
costs, as well as by detecting when power flows should be reduced to
avoid unnecessary wear on transmission equipment. The role that
these and other GETs could play in delaying or eliminating the need
for new transmission facilities cannot be ignored. I urge the
Commission to consider further reforms to incentivize the adoption
and deployment of GETs.
    6. Many commenters raise concerns about delays and significant
backlogs in interconnection queues across the country.\12\
Currently, less than a quarter of generator interconnection
applications actually result in an interconnection.\13\
Interconnection applicants submitting speculative interconnection
requests can linger in the queue, only to withdraw at late stages,
often necessitating the study of non-viable projects as well as
restudies due to withdrawals. These often result in delays and cost
risks for commercially viable projects that are otherwise ready to
interconnect. Although the reforms we propose in this NOPR may help
mitigate these issues in the long term, they are not enough to
alleviate existing backlogs in the near term. While I recognize and
commend the ongoing efforts in some regions to address the large
volume of interconnection requests,\14\ I encourage my colleagues to
consider whether it is necessary to require certain best practices,
such as first-ready, first-served cluster study approaches, to
process interconnection requests more efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Advanced Energy Economy Reply Comments at 17-23;
American Electric Power Service Corporation Comments at 36-38;
American Public Power Association Comments at 27; Edison Electric
Institute Reply Comments at 27-30; NextEra Energy, Inc. Comments at
12.
    \13\ See Queued Up . . . But in Need of Transmission Unleashing
the Benefits of Clean Power with Grid Infrastructure, U.S.
Department of Energy, at 2 (April 2022).
    \14\ See, e.g., California Public Utilities Commission Comments
at 70 (noting that California Independent System Operator
Corporation is undertaking a stakeholder process focused on
increasing efficiency of the interconnection study process); PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. Comments at 47-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Similarly, many commenters have highlighted the importance of
adopting interregional coordination and planning reforms,
particularly for reliability.\15\ Today's NOPR does not, at this
time, propose changes to the existing interregional transmission
coordination and cost allocation requirements of Order No. 1000. As
we continue to examine those issues, I urge the Commission to act
expeditiously to propose interregional reliability planning reforms.
Looking beyond regional boundaries is important so that cost-
efficient regional and interregional projects can be considered and
studied together. We should consider whether neighboring regions
should adopt common planning assumptions and methods that allow for
region-specific inputs. Additionally, I believe we must consider
whether to adopt a requirement for a minimum amount of interregional
transfer capacity to protect against generation shortfalls,
especially during extreme weather events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., NARUC Comments at 8 (``The planning process
should share system planning information on an interregional level
whenever appropriate.''); id. at 19 (describing how during Winter
Storm Uri, ``usually a net exporter of energy, SPP relied
significantly on imported energy to serve load during the winter
event'' and that ``effective planning should strive to quantify
benefits associated with enhancing interregional import and export
capabilities, given the likelihood of future extreme weather events
and related energy shortages. Further analysis and process
improvements in interregional transmission development and imports
and exports capability will be necessary, not only to accommodate
demand for a clean energy transition, but also for reliability and
defined resiliency benefits.''); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Comments at 72-73 (stating that greater interregional transfer
capability has a significant reliability benefit as demonstrated by
the February 2021 Cold Snap and the 2014 Polar Vortex, and the
Commission should approach the issue of strengthening interregional
ties as a broad reliability-based benefit); New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. Comments at 55 (``Interconnections with
neighboring systems are important tools to support grid reliability,
resiliency, and market efficiency by providing opportunities for the
exchange of capacity and energy.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Finally, I note that this NOPR is merely a proposal and I am
looking forward to reviewing the comments in response. In addition,
I emphasize that the reforms in this NOPR are not intended to be
one-size-fits-all, nor would I support such an approach. Recognizing
the unique needs and characteristics of individual markets and
regions, I am particularly interested in comments on whether the
reforms proposed in this NOPR allow for a sufficient level of
regional flexibility.

    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
Willie L. Phillips,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2022-08973 Filed 5-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18824-18826]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0057]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 16 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0057 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end
of each 2-year period. The 16 individuals listed in this notice have
each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Melvin T. Ayer

    Mr. Ayer, age 57, has had an inferior temporal visual field defect
in his left eye since 2007. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2010, his optometrist noted, ``Based on Mr. Ayer's report of no
history of problems with his commercial driving and his stable ocular
findings, he appears to have sufficient vision to perform driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Ayer reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 1.1
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Luis A. Bejarono

    Mr. Bejarono, 41, has a large corneal scar and retinal detachment
in his left eye due to an accident that occurred 5 years ago. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, light
perception. Following an examination in 2010, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Bejarono has sufficient vision to
perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Bejarono reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 8
years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard T. Berendt

    Mr. Berendt, 60, has had a macular hole in his left eye since 1997.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist
noted, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Berendt has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Berendt reported that he has driven straight trucks for
20 years, accumulating 312,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 14 years accumulating 2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash for which
he was not cited and two convictions for speeding in a CMV. In the
first incident, he exceeded the speed limit by 4 miles per hour (MPH),
in the second incident, he exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.

James O. Cook

    Mr. Cook, 62, has a central scar in his left eye due to a traumatic
injury that occurred in 1967. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20 and in his left eye 20/400. Following an examination in 2010, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Cook meets all applicable
requirements to drive a commercial vehicle. Therefore there should be
no issue in Mr. Cook retaining commercial driving privileges.'' Mr.
Cook reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years,
accumulating 350,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 28
years accumulating 3.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Timothy J. Curran

    Mr. Curran, 42, has refractive Amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60 and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Curran has adequate visual
function to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Curran reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 83,200 miles and
tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years accumulating 156,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Alfred D. Hewitt

    Mr. Hewitt, 57, has had a prosthetic right eye since 2004. The best
corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/15. Following an
examination in 2010, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical opinion
he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hewitt
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 38 years,
accumulating 1.9 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Mark A. Kleinow

    Mr. Kleinow, 54, has central scarring due to central serious
retinopathy. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2010, his
optometrist noted, ``Patient/applicant has sufficient vision to perform
the driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Kleinow reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 5.6 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Luke R. Lafley

    Mr. Lafley, 42, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic injury that occurred in 1978. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist
noted, ``I feel the vision deficiency of having one eye does not
prohibit operation of a motor vehicle and Mr. Lafley's vision is
adequate to drive commercial motor vehicles.'' Mr. Lafley reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 780,000 miles
and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years accumulating 560,000
miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from Washington. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Kevin R. Lambert

    Mr. Lambert, 47, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to a traumatic injury that occurred in 1999. The best corrected
visual acuity in his left eye is 20/25. Following an examination in
2010, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my professional opinion, with the
aid of the correction lenses that are prescribed, Mr. Lambert will have
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lambert reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James P. Lanigan

    Mr. Lanigan, 56, has had histoplasmosis in his left eye since 6
years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``He has a successful 20-year history of commercial
driving and his visual status has not affected his ability to perform
his job.'' Mr. Lanigan reported that he has driven straight trucks for
17 years, accumulating 544,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations
for 1 year accumulating 5,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Nusret Odzakovic

    Mr. Odzakovic, 37, has had concussive optic nerve atrophy in his
right eye since 1994. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010,
his optometrist noted, ``It is our medical opinion that Mr. Odzakovic
continues to have sufficient visual capabilities to perform the driving
tasks associated with operating a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Odzakovic
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating
180,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years accumulating
120,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Scott W. Schilling

    Mr. Schilling, 38, has had a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident that occurred in 1983. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``I
certify in my medical opinion that Scott has sufficient vision to
perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Schilling reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
3 years, accumulating 195,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Randy E. Sims

    Mr. Sims, 58, has a choroidal rupture in his left eye due to a
retinal injury sustained in 1962. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an
examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I believe his vision
is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Sims reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 260,000 miles
and tractor-trailer combinations for 26 years accumulating 2 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Halman Smith

    Mr. Smith, 53, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
traumatic optic neuropathy since age 27. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his optometrist noted,
``Based on my exam findings and current laws regulating driver's
licensure, Mr. Smith has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
needed to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 14 years, 700,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Delaware. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes but three convictions for moving violations in a CMV;
one conviction was for an improper lane change and the other two
convictions were for speeding in a CMV, in both speeding incidents, he
exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph.

Robert D. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 52, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2010, his

optometrist noted, ``Robert has been driving commercially for a number
of years, has been a patient here for over a decade, and I see no
reason why he should not be able to continue to drive.'' Mr. Smith
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating
1.3 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years
accumulating 10,200 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard D. Williams

    Mr. Williams, 55, has had loss of vision in his right eye since
2006. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60 and in
his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist
noted, ``In light of the fact that his left eye has perfect 20/20
vision and that he does have a history of decreased vision in the right
eye for the past several years, I do feel that he has adapted well to
the situation and I have no concerns in his ability to drive a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Williams reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 35 years, accumulating 2.6 million miles, tractor-trailer
combinations for 20 years accumulating 1.5 million miles and buses for
5 years, accumulating 62,500 miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business May 5, 2011. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant
information that becomes available after the comment closing date.
Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.

    Issued on: March 29, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7959 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40417-40418]
[DOCID:fr14jy08-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58113; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing
and Trading of Shares of the NETS Tokyo Stock Exchange REIT Index Fund

July 7, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On May 22, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade the shares (``Shares'') of the
NETSTM Tokyo Stock Exchange REIT Index Fund (``Fund'')
issued by the NETS Trust (``Trust''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57906 (June 2,
2008), 73 FR 32377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares pursuant to NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Exchange's listing standards for
Investment Company Units (``ICUs'').\4\ The Fund seeks to provide
investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield
performance, before fees and expenses, of publicly-traded securities in
the aggregate in the Japanese market, as represented by the Tokyo Stock
Exchange REIT Index (``Index''). The Index is a market capitalization
weighted index consisting of stocks of all of the real estate
investment trusts traded primarily on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
Detailed descriptions of the Fund, the Index, procedures for creating
and redeeming Shares, transaction fees and expenses, dividends,
distributions, taxes, and reports to be distributed to beneficial
owners of the Shares can be found in the Registration Statement \5\ or
on the Fund's Web site (http://www.netsetfs.com), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ICUs are securities that represent interests in a registered
investment company that holds securities comprising, or otherwise
based on or representing an interest in, an index or portfolio of
securities (or holds securities in another registered investment
company that holds securities comprising, or otherwise based on or
representing an interest in, an index or portfolio of securities).
See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3).
    \5\ See the Trust's Registration Statement on Form N-1A, dated
February 13, 2008 (File Nos. 333-147077 and 811-22140)
(``Registration Statement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule change is required because the Index does not
meet all of the ``generic'' listing requirements of Commentary
.01(a)(B) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) applicable to listing of
ICUs based on international or global indexes. The Index meets all such
requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(a)(B)(2).
Commentary .01(a)(B)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides
that component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of
the weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a minimum
worldwide monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of
at least 250,000 shares; for the period of October 2007 up to and
including March 2008, component stocks that in the aggregate accounted
for at least 90% of the weight of the Index had a minimum worldwide
monthly trading volume of 2,918 shares.
    The Exchange represents that: (1) Except for Commentary
.01(a)(B)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Shares currently
satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(3); (2) the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to ICUs shall apply
to the Shares; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3
under the Act \6\ for the initial and continued listing of the Shares.
In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares will comply with
all other requirements applicable to ICUs including, but not limited
to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such
as the Index value and Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the
trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts,
surveillance, and Information Bulletin to ETP Holders, as set forth in
prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules applicable
to the listing and trading of ICUs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55621 (April
12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86)
(approving generic listing standards for ICUs based on international
or global indexes); 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19,
2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14) (approving generic listing standards for ICUs
and Portfolio Depositary Receipts); and 41983 (October 6, 1999), 64
FR 56008 (October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-29) (approving rules for the
listing and trading of ICUs). See also e-mail from Michael Cavalier,
Associate General Counsel, NYSE Euronext, to Christopher W. Chow,
Special Counsel, Commission, dated June 2, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act \8\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Index does not meet the generic listing requirement
that component stocks accounting in the aggregate for at least 90% of
the weight of the index have a minimum worldwide monthly trading volume
during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change should not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest
or impose any significant burden on competition. Commentary .01(a)(B)
was designed to, in conjunction with other listing requirements, ensure
that ICUs listed on the Exchange are sufficiently broad-based in scope
to be not readily susceptible to manipulation.\11\ In approving these
standards, the Commission believed that, taken together, they are
reasonably designed to ensure that securities with substantial market
capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of
any underlying index or portfolio that, when applied in conjunction
with the other applicable listing requirements, would permit the
listing and trading only of products that are sufficiently broad-based
in scope to minimize potential manipulation.\12\ In this case, the
Commission believes that the global notional volume traded (number of
shares traded multiplied by

price of security) of Index components indicates that the Shares should
not be readily susceptible to manipulation: for the period of October
2007 up to and including March 2008, component stocks that in the
aggregate accounted for 93.42% of the weight of the Index each had
global notional volume traded per month of at least $25,000,000,
averaged over the last six months. In addition, the Commission notes
the Exchange's representation that the Shares satisfy all of the other
generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3),
which includes: (1) Commentary .01(a)(B)(1), which establishes a
minimum market value of index component stocks that in the aggregate
account for at least 90% of the weight of the underlying index; (2)
Commentary .01(a)(B)(3), which prohibits (a) the most heavily weighted
component stock from exceeding 25% of the weight of the underlying
index, and (b) the five most heavily weighted component stocks from
exceeding 60% of the weight of the underlying index; and (3) Commentary
.01(a)(B)(4), which establishes (in certain circumstances) a minimum
number of component stocks for an underlying index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55621 (April 12,
2007), 72 FR 19571, 19574 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86)
(order approving generic listing standards for ICUs based on global
or international indexes).
    \12\ Id. at 19576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange represented that the Shares
will be subject to all of its continued listing standards applicable to
ICUs and all other requirements applicable to ICUs, and that the Trust
is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.\13\ The Commission
also notes that it has previously approved the listing and trading of
derivative securities products based on indexes that were composed of
stocks that did not meet certain quantitative generic listing criteria,
including Commentary .01(a)(B)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
    \14\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56695
(October 24, 2007), 72 FR 61413 (October 30, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-
2007-111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-40) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15888 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78958]
[DOCID:fr24de08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 198

Aviation Insurance

CFR Correction

    In title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 140 to 199,
revised as of January 1, 2008, on page 316, in Sec.  198.3, in
paragraph (a), revise the reference ``Sec.  198.19'' to read ``Sec.
198.1''.

[FR Doc. E8-30838 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36277-36279]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0011]

Academic Development of a Training Program for Good Laboratory
Practices in High Containment Environments (U24)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of grant funds for the support of a Funding Opportunity
Announcement (FOA) entitled ``Academic Development of a Training
Program for Good Laboratory Practices in High Containment Environments
(U24).'' In this FOA, FDA announces its intention to accept and
consider a single source application for an award to the University of
Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Galveston National Laboratory (GNL) for the
development and implementation of a certified, academic training course
for instruction in Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) in a Biosafety Level
(BSL) 4 High Containment Environment. FDA seeks to support an effort to
design a robust, collaborative, and educational program using problem-
based learning techniques designed to bring researchers and regulators
together to educate each other on the challenges related to these
issues and to identify solutions that are acceptable from both
scientific and regulatory perspectives.

DATES: Important dates are as follows:
    1. The application due date is July 16, 2012.
    2. The anticipated start date is September 15, 2012.
    3. The opening date is June 18, 2012.
    4. The expiration date is July 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit the paper application to: Gladys Melendez Bohler,
Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services (HFA-500), 5630 Fishers
Lane, rm. 1078, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For more information, see section III of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CAPT. Estella Jones, Office of the
Chief Scientist, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, rm. 4130,
Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Lisa Hensley, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and
Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, rm. 4128, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-
796-8518, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Gladys Melendez Bohler, Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services
(HFA-500), 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1078, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-
7175, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA
located at http://www.fda.gov/EmergencyPreparedness/MedicalCountermeasures/default.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Request for Application: RFA-FD-12-024
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance: 93.103

A. Background

    FDA's Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats (OCET) is a
leader and active participant in the public health community and with
the military defense community, helping to advance the development,
evaluation, and approval of medical countermeasures to be used against
threats involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN)
agents. In 2010, FDA launched its Medical Countermeasures initiative
(MCMi) in response to a report by the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to assess the our nation's emergency
readiness and in answer to a charge by President Obama to improve our
nation's capacity to respond faster and more effectively to CBRN and
emerging infectious disease threats--such as pandemic influenza. OCET
was tasked with leading the implementation of the MCMi. OCET's
activities are informed by the knowledge that protecting the civilian
public and the warfighter against CBRN agents is a national security
priority. A significant area of engagement for OCET is its support of
innovative science to advance CBRN countermeasure development with the
goal of improving access to safe and effective medical countermeasures,
should the need arise. These efforts are central to strengthening
national preparedness and security.
    The ``Animal Rule'' (21 CFR 314.600 for drugs; 21 CFR 601.9 for
biological products) permits animal models to be

used to test the effectiveness of a product when testing in humans is
neither possible nor feasible. Under the ``Animal Rule,'' pivotal
efficacy studies must be conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory
Practice (GLP) regulations (21 CFR part 58). Biological threats, such
as Ebola virus, Marburg virus, Variola virus, or Lassa fever virus, for
which medical countermeasures are needed, require testing in high and
maximum biosecurity level (BSL-4) laboratories. These laboratory
environments pose daunting challenges to a researcher's ability to meet
the requirements of GLP regulations. There has been tremendous progress
in the development of candidate interventions over the last decade.
However, to date there is not a single facility that is capable of
performing pivotal studies under GLP at BSL-4. To break the current
choke point in the development process for interventions against agents
requiring maximum containment, it will be critical for laboratories
with BSL-4 capacity to receive the training and develop the capability
necessary to routinely perform pivotal studies in accordance with GLP.
    OCET seeks to support an effort to design a robust, collaborative,
and educational program using problem-based learning techniques
designed to bring researchers and regulators together to educate each
other on the challenges related to these issues and to identify
solutions that are acceptable from both scientific and regulatory
perspectives.
1. GLP Natural History Studies in BSL-4 Laboratories
    Natural history studies are performed to establish the dose of the
disease agent, the route of exposure, and to study the pathogenicity of
the disease agent in the animal model. Results of these studies help
determine which animal model best describes the disease in humans.
Acceptance of results of these studies for regulatory decision-making
is contingent upon these studies being conducted in accordance with
GLP. Examples of challenges in meeting GLP requirements include
appropriate data recording, record keeping, inspections, and equipment
validation. Training on the development of strategies to meet GLP
requirements in high and maximum biocontainment laboratories can be
realized when everyone has a common understanding of the challenges and
requirements. In such a case, the scientific validity and regulatory
acceptance of a study can be ensured early on, reducing the need for
repeat studies, thereby reducing the numbers of animals needed to
address the scientific and regulatory objectives. Once the natural
history of the disease in the animal model has been established, it can
be used to test the efficacy of antibiotics, vaccine, or other
therapies as described in the ``Animal Rule.''
2. GLP Animal Efficacy Studies in BSL-4 Laboratories
    Animal efficacy studies are performed in accordance with the
``Animal Rule'' to test the effectiveness of a medical countermeasure
against a specific threat agent in an animal model that best models the
disease in humans. Results from these studies also help determine the
dose of the medical countermeasure that will be effective in humans.
Acceptance of efficacy study results for regulatory decision-making is
also contingent upon meeting GLP requirements. To date, three
countermeasure products have been FDA approved using ``Animal Rule''-
type studies in support of efficacy.

B. Research Objectives

1. The Role of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
National Laboratory
    The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston National
Laboratory (UTMB-GNL) is globally renowned for educational excellence
in the sciences, medicine and research, as well as for its Laboratory
Biosafety Training Program (LBTP). The LBTP courses are designed to
provide training for laboratorians working at BSL-2 through BSL-4
levels. UTMB's Institutional Office of Regulated Nonclinical Studies
(ORNcS) provides oversight for regulated studies and regulatory
operations. In addition to the LBTP courses, the ORNcS offers an
extensive, high-quality GLP training program to support faculty and
staff at UTMB that are conducting nonclinical studies to support
product licensure, including nonclinical studies conducted in BSL-3 and
BSL-4 laboratories. ORNcS and OCET concur that an educational gap
exists regarding the performance challenges of conducting GLP compliant
studies in (A)BSL3/4 environments. Both have identified the need for an
educational opportunity designed to better link GLP regulatory
requirements with BSL-4 laboratory work to increase the efficiency of
FDA data review and subsequently facilitate approval of medical
countermeasures.
2. Project Description
    This project represents a collaborative effort between OCET, the
UTMB-GNL, and UTMB ORNcS to support scientific and regulatory
collaboration and enhance regulatory science to advance the development
of safe and effective antibiotics, vaccines, and other medical
countermeasures for use by civilian and military personnel in response
to CBRN threat agents. The goal is to develop training strategies for
scientists to foster a thorough understanding of the challenges and
establish collaborative classroom environments to find solutions for
overcoming hurdles. A common understanding of the challenges and
requirements can lead to scientific validity and early regulatory
acceptance of a study, reducing the need for repeat studies, thereby
reducing the numbers of animals needed to address the scientific and
regulatory objectives. Empowered with knowledge of how to successfully
meet GLP requirements in high and maximum biocontainment, scientists
working in this environment and FDA staff who will be evaluating
applications will be better able to link GLP regulatory requirements
with BSL-4 laboratory work, thus increasing the quality of the data and
the efficiency of data review, subsequently facilitating approval of
medical countermeasures. This project will also lead to improved
technical cooperation between FDA and the regulated institutions
conducting GLP research in maximum biocontainment. The project has the
following goals:
    a. Mutual understanding. Progress in the development of animal
models for efficacy testing of medical countermeasures has been very
slow as developers struggle to design and conduct studies that meet
scientific objectives and regulatory requirements for approval.
Progress is further slowed as developers are sometimes at a loss with
regard to how to satisfy GLP requirements when conducting studies in
maximum biocontainment conditions. Currently, FDA's Basic Bioresearch
Monitoring training program used to train field inspectors who inspect
laboratories for GLP compliance lacks specific guidance for inspection
of BSL-3 or BSL-4 laboratories that conduct GLP studies. OCET and ORNcS
believe one way to foster progress on this issue is by gathering
researchers and regulators together in a nonthreatening educational
environment to identify the challenges and needs, then work together to
find solutions.
    b. Develop collaborations. The training opportunity will bring
together the community of researchers involved in conducting research
in high and maximum biocontainment laboratories, who are also
interested in conducting ``animal rule'' studies and animal
qualification studies to support medical countermeasure development and

approval. In some cases, similar research is being conducted in
different laboratories for the same medical countermeasure need.
Participants will be encouraged to share experiences and join in
collaborations to prevent duplication of research and avoid repetition
of failed efforts and otherwise join in support of each other to attain
shared goals and facilitate countermeasure development and approval.
3. Continuing Education--Areas of Focus
    a. GLP in high and maximum containment.--This portion of the
training will be a joint UTMB/FDA effort, with UTMB providing the
course foundation and FDA offering the field inspector perspective.
Lecture examples would include a GLP Refresher, Good Documentation
practices, Internal GLP Audits, Equipment Validation and Calibration,
and Effective SOPs. Lectures could be followed with practical exercises
pointing out specific challenges in meeting GLP requirements that have
been encountered in BSL-3 and BSL-4 studies conducted at UTMB.
    b. The ``Animal Rule.''--FDA will provide an overview of the
regulations for approval of new drugs and biologics based on evidence
of effectiveness from studies in animals, including the status of FDA's
draft document entitled, ``Guidance for Industry: Animal Models--
Essential Elements to Address Efficacy Under the Animal Rule'' dated
January 2009 (Draft Guidance) and the animal model qualification
process.
    c. Animal welfare.--This portion of the training will review animal
welfare laws, policies guidelines and requirements, including lectures
and discussions on the role of the veterinarian, determination of
humane endpoints, and use of supportive care measures in BSL-4 studies.
    d. Telemetry.--Use of telemetry for remote monitoring of routine
clinical parameters, such as body temperature, heart rate, respiration
rate, and blood pressure is a helpful and sometimes an essential tool
for conducting studies in BSL-4 laboratories. An entire half-day will
be devoted to teaching what is available and how to implement telemetry
techniques into BSL-4 studies.
4. Dissemination of Successful Enhancements to the Regulatory Science
and Regulation of Animal Rule Studies for Medical Countermeasure
Development
    UTMB and OCET will collaborate to incorporate any new FDA guidances
and educational tools into the training program as new measures are
developed (e.g., drug development tool guidance, updates to GLPs).

C. Eligibility Information

    As work in regulatory science for medical countermeasure
development progresses, OCET and UTMB anticipate additional
collaboration through seminars and training programs, particularly in
the areas of GLP in maximum and high biocontainment laboratories,
training FDA field inspectors how to effectively conduct GLP
inspections in a high or maximum biocontainment laboratories, and
training laboratorians and regulators in how to work in high or maximum
biocontainment laboratories. With the financial and scientific support
from FDA, UTMB is uniquely qualified to undertake these activities,
given its mandate as an educational and scientific institution, its
high visibility as a pioneer in implementing GLP in maximum and high
biocontainment laboratories, and its access to worldwide scientific and
regulatory expertise. UTMB has demonstrated a GLP reporting structure
and large animal in vivo GLP BSL-4 expertise. In addition, the FDA/UTMB
training program will be accessible to researchers at all other
university, government, and private organizations.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    Only one award will be made.
    OCET anticipates providing in FY2012 up to $150,000 (total costs
include direct and indirect costs) for one award subject to
availability of funds in support of this project. The possibility of
four additional years of support up to $600,000 of funding is
contingent upon successful performance and the availability of funds.

B. Length of Support

    The timeframe for this project is 5 years from the award date of
the initial application.

III. Paper Application, Registration, and Submission Information

    To submit a paper application in response to this FOA, applicants
should first review the full announcement located at (http://www.fda.gov/EmergencyPreparedness/MedicalCountermeasures/default.htm).
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout this document, but
FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites
after this document publishes in the Federal Register). Persons
interested in applying for a grant may obtain an application at http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html. For all paper
application submissions, the following steps are required:
     Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number.
     Step 2: Register With Central Contractor Registration.
     Step 3: Register With Electronic Research Administration
(eRA) Commons.
    Steps 1 and 2, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 3, in detail, can be
found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps,
submit paper applications to: Gladys Melendez Bohler, Office of
Acquisitions and Grants Services (HFA-500), 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1078, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: June 12, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-14741 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 16782-16783]
[DOCID:fr05ap07-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

March 30, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2503-113.
    c. Date Filed: March 19, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Keowee-Toxaway Project (Keowee Development).
    f. Location: Lake Keowee is located in Pickens and Oconee County,
South Carolina. This project does not occupy any tribal or federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec.  Sec.
791(a) 825(r) and Sec.  Sec.  799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Joe Hall, Manager Lake Service; Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC; P.O. Box 1006; Charlotte, NC; 28201-1006; 704-
382-8576.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jon Cofrancesco at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: April 30, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the

Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Application: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke),
licensee for the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project, has filed an
application seeking authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to lease to The Reserve at Lake Keowee (The Reserve), 10.77
acres of project lands located on Lake Keowee in Pickens County, South
Carolina for access to the reservoir and the development of certain
facilities that would serve the residents of The Reserve.
    The Reserve proposes to develop Commercial/Residential and
Commercial/Non-residential marina facilities at the site, consisting of
23 cluster docks with a total of 304 boat dock locations, an irrigation
pump that would withdraw up to 2 million gallons of water a day from
the lake, a docking location for fuel pumping and sewer pumpout
facilities, and a dry stack storage facility that can accommodate up to
624 boats and includes a boat launching pier. The proposal would also
involve dredging of 6,300 cubic yards of material, the use of a ferry
to provide water access for property owners and golf carts to various
locations on Lake Keowee (the ferry will not be moored at the site),
and implementation of a mitigation plan to address existing
encroachments of the golf course on project lands. The planned
mitigation requires The Reserve to make various improvements to the
project's Crow Creek Public Access Area and to provide ongoing
maintenance of the area.
    l. Location of the Application: This filing is available for review
at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of

new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion
to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the application. A copy of the application may be
obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must
also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6326 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P