[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65409-65410]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0403]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims Made
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on our proposed collection of certain
information. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA),
Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of information, including each
proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to
allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice
invites comments on the information collection provisions of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) and the guidance
entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Substantiation for Dietary Supplement
Claims Made Under Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, we are publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.

Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims Made Under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6) (OMB Control Number
0910-0626)--Extension

    Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)) requires that a manufacturer of a
dietary supplement making a nutritional deficiency, structure/function,
or general well-being claim have substantiation that the claim is
truthful and not misleading. Under section 403(r)(6)(A) of the FD&C
Act, such a statement is one that ``claims a benefit related to a
classical nutrient deficiency disease and discloses the prevalence of
such disease in the United States, describes the role of a nutrient or
dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in
humans, characterizes the documented mechanism by which a nutrient or
dietary ingredient acts to maintain such structure or function, or
describes general well-being from consumption for a nutrient or dietary
ingredient.''
    The guidance document, entitled ``Substantiation for Dietary
Supplement Claims Made Under section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act,'' provides our recommendations to manufacturers
about the amount, type, and quality of evidence they should have to
substantiate a claim under section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. The
guidance does not discuss the types of claims that can be made
concerning the effect of a dietary supplement on the structure or
function of the body, nor does it discuss criteria to determine when a
statement about a dietary supplement is a disease claim. The guidance
document is intended to assist manufacturers in their efforts to comply
with section 403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. Persons with access to the
Internet may obtain the guidance at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances.
    Dietary supplement manufacturers collect the necessary
substantiating information for their product as required by section
403(r)(6) of the FD&C Act. The guidance provides information to
manufacturers to assist them in doing so. The recommendations contained
in the guidance are voluntary. Dietary supplement manufacturers will
only need to collect information to substantiate their product's
nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or general well-being claim
if they choose to place a claim on their product's label.
    The standard discussed in the guidance for substantiation of a
claim on the labeling of a dietary supplement is consistent with
standards set by the Federal Trade Commission for dietary supplements
and other health-related products that the claim be based on competent
and reliable scientific evidence. This evidence standard is broad
enough that some dietary supplement manufacturers may only need to
collect peer-reviewed scientific journal articles to substantiate their
claims; other dietary supplement manufacturers whose products have
properties that are less well documented may have to conduct studies to
build a body of evidence to support their claims. It is unlikely that a
dietary supplement manufacturer will attempt to make a claim when the
cost of obtaining the evidence to support the claim outweighs the
benefits of having the claim on the product's label. It is likely that
manufacturers will seek substantiation for their claims in the
scientific literature.
    The time it takes to assemble the necessary scientific information
to support their claims depends on the product and the claimed
benefits. If the product is one of several on the market making a
particular claim for which

there is adequate publicly available and widely established evidence
supporting the claim, then the time to gather supporting data will be
minimal; if the product is the first of its kind to make a particular
claim or the evidence supporting the claim is less publicly available
or not widely established, then gathering the appropriate scientific
evidence to substantiate the claim will be more time consuming.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                    Average burden
           Claim type                Number of      records per    Total annual         per         Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records      recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widely known, established.......             667               1             667              44          29,348
Pre-existing, not widely                     667               1             667             120          80,040
 established....................
Novel...........................             667               1             667             120          80,040
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         189,428
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    We assume that it will take 44 hours to assemble information needed
to substantiate a claim on a particular dietary supplement when the
claim is widely known and established. We believe it will take closer
to 120 hours to assemble supporting scientific information when the
claim is novel or when the claim is pre-existing but the scientific
underpinnings of the claim are not widely established. These are claims
that may be based on emerging science, where conducting literature
searches and understanding the literature takes time. It is also
possible that references for claims made for some dietary ingredients
or dietary supplements may primarily be found in foreign journals and
in foreign languages or in the older, classical literature where it is
not available on computerized literature databases or in the major
scientific reference databases, such as the National Library of
Medicine's literature database, all of which increases the time of
obtaining substantiation.
    In the Federal Register of January 6, 2000 (65 FR 1000), we
published a final rule on statements made for dietary supplements
concerning the effect of the product on the structure or function of
the body. In that final rule, we estimated that there were 29,000
dietary supplement products marketed in the United States (65 FR 1000
at 1045). Assuming that the flow of new products is 10 percent per
year, then 2,900 new dietary supplement products will come on the
market each year. The structure/function final rule estimated that
about 69 percent of dietary supplements have a claim on their labels,
most probably a structure/function claim (65 FR 1000 at 1046).
Therefore, we assume that supplement manufacturers will need time to
assemble the evidence to substantiate each of the 2,001 claims (2,900 x
69 percent) made each year. If we assume that the 2,001 claims are
equally likely to be pre-existing widely established claims, novel
claims, or pre-existing claims that are not widely established, then we
can expect 667 of each of these types of claims to be substantiated per
year. Table 1 of this document shows that the annual burden hours
associated with assembling evidence for claims is 189,428 (the sum of
667 x 44 hours, 667 x 120 hours, and 667 x 120 hours).

    Dated: October 28, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-26142 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


c. Commission Determination
    104. We adopt the NOPR proposal to provide for public comment on
the one-time informational reports.\202\ We modify the due date for
public comments so that public comments are due 60 days after the due
date for filing the informational reports. By allowing the filing of
comments 60 days after the due date for the filing of informational
reports (rather than 30 days after as proposed), we address EPSA's
concern that the comment period is extremely compressed for any entity
that may be impacted by multiple transmission providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,196 at PP 10, 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. Given the impacts of extreme weather on transmission assets
and operations, we believe that the Commission, transmission providers,
and the stakeholder community at large will benefit from comments on
the informational reports by establishing a more robust record. In
turn, a record that includes public comments would better meet the
goals of this reporting requirement to provide the Commission with
information related to its statutory responsibilities regarding
reliability and rates as well as to promote information sharing and
best practices.
    106. In response to EEI's and Eversource's statement that,
generally, the Commission does not allow public comment on
informational reports provided to the Commission and that doing so
would be a departure from Commission precedent, we note that the
Commission has previously allowed public comment on informational
reports filed with the Commission.\203\ We disagree with Ameren's claim
that public comments are likely of little value. As stated above, we
believe public comment will in fact be beneficial because it will help
establish a more robust record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ E.g., Modernizing Wholesale Elec. Mkt. Design, 179 FERC ]
61,029, at P 1 (2022); Grid Resilience in Reg'l Transmission Orgs.
and Independent System Operators, 162 FERC ] 61,012, at P 19 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Treatment of Confidential Information
a. NOPR Proposal
    107. The Commission suggested that transmission providers should
not need to file Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information
(CEII) given the focus of the one-time informational reports on
policies and processes for assessing vulnerabilities rather than the
assessments themselves. The Commission proposed that to the extent
transmission providers believe that information they file warrants
protections, they may make a request for such treatment pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  388.112 and 388.113 of the Commission's regulations.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ 18 CFR 388.112-113 (2022); NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,196 at P
22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    108. Commenters raised concerns about the sensitive nature of
information about proposed or existing critical infrastructure. EEI and
Eversource state that, because vulnerability assessments contain
highly-sensitive information, they agree with the Commission's decision
to

require transmission providers to report process-related information,
rather than outcomes.\205\ EEI states that transmission providers
should be able to request protective treatment for certain information
they file in their reports.\206\ ERO Enterprise requests that the
Commission share on a confidential basis with ERO Enterprise all
reliability information filed to the Commission in these dockets that
is afforded privileged treatment.\207\ Eversource contends that the
Commission should grant requests for privileged treatment in
information contained in the reports marked as Critical Energy/Electric
Infrastructure Information, or as confidential business or commercial
information.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ EEI Comments at 4; Eversource Comments at 3.
    \206\ EEI Comments at 5.
    \207\ ERO Enterprise Comments at 6.
    \208\ Eversource Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    109. We reiterate that the Commission did not propose to require
that transmission providers file extreme weather vulnerability
assessments. Instead, the Commission proposed that the one-time
informational reports focus on describing the current or planned
policies and processes that respondents have in place, or plan to
implement, to assess and mitigate extreme weather risks.\209\ As stated
in the NOPR, we continue to believe that this focus of the one-time
informational reports should avoid the need for respondents to file
privileged information or CEII.\210\ However, to the extent a
transmission provider believes that information it will file warrants
protections, it may make a request for privileged or CEII treatment
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  388.112 and 388.113 of the Commission's
regulations, and the Commission will address requests for privileged
information or CEII consistent with applicable Commission
regulations.\211\ But again, we reiterate that we do not expect
privileged information or CEII will need to be included in these one-
time reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,196 at P 22.
    \210\ Id.
    \211\ 18 CFR 388.112-113. Section 388.112 of the Commission's
regulations specifies that any person submitting a document to the
Commission may request privileged treatment for some or all of the
information contained in a particular document that it claims is
exempt from the mandatory public disclosure requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act, and that should be withheld from public
disclosure. See 5 U.S.C. 552. Section 388.113 of the Commission's
regulations governs the procedures for submitting, designating,
handling, sharing, and disseminating Critical Energy/Electric
Infrastructure Information submitted to or generated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Issues Outside the Scope of This Final Rule

1. Comments
    110. National Mining Association expresses concern that the
retirement of coal generation could exacerbate extreme weather risks to
the bulk-power system.\212\ National Mining Association asserts that
baseload coal generation is essential to ensuring grid reliability,
especially during adverse weather events such as those contemplated by
the Commission.\213\ Ampjack states that today's grid calls for a new
holistic approach that brings together all utilities to fully maximize
existing transmission line assets to increase capacity and optimize
operating revenue.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ National Mining Association Comments at 2-3.
    \213\ Id. at 7.
    \214\ Ampjack Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. WE ACT argues that the Commission should reframe its approach
to regulation to center on environmental justice and encourage a more
holistic and accurate accounting of extreme weather impacts, inclusive
of acknowledging inequitable energy burdens and how distributed
renewables can increase resilience and lower costs for ratepayers.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ WE ACT Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. Public Interest Organizations contend that RTO/ISOs should be
required to describe what, if any, effect extreme weather has on their
markets.\216\ Public Interest Organizations also recommend that the
Commission require RTOs/ISOs to explain how they use extreme weather
vulnerability assessment results to revise their market rules to
mitigate extreme weather risks.\217\ Public Interest Organizations
argue that, because extreme weather impacts market functions, the
Commission needs to understand how RTOs/ISOs use information on extreme
weather risks in market formation.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ Public Interest Organizations Comments at 7.
    \217\ Id. at 15.
    \218\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    113. The NOPR focuses on whether and how transmission providers are
assessing and mitigating extreme weather risks to Commission-
jurisdictional transmission assets and operations. Therefore, these
comments are outside the scope of this proceeding and will not be
addressed here.

V. Information Collection Statement

    114. The information collection requirements contained in this
final rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.\219\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\220\ Upon approval of
a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2022).
    \220\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    115. This final rule, pursuant to FPA section 304, requires
transmission providers \221\ to file one-time reports on their extreme
weather vulnerability assessment policies and processes. The Commission
believes requiring transmission providers to submit a one-time
informational report on their current or planned efforts to assess the
vulnerabilities of their jurisdictional transmission assets and
operations to extreme weather events will assist in the proper
administration of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ As noted above, in this final rule, unless otherwise
noted, we use the term ``transmission provider'' to mean any public
utility that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. See 16
U.S.C. 824(e); 18 CFR 35.28. To be clear, this term encompasses
public utility transmission owners that are members of RTOs/ISOs.
Accordingly, the reports we are proposing herein would be filed by
either the public utility members of RTOs/ISOs, the RTOs/ISOs
themselves, or both, as well as other public utility transmission
providers outside of RTO/ISO regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: One-Time Informational Reports on Extreme Weather
Vulnerability Assessments.
    Action: Newly Implemented FERC-1004 collection of information in
accordance with Docket Nos. RM22-16-000 and AD21-13-000.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-TBD.
    Respondents: Transmission providers (including public utility
transmission owners that are members of RTOs/ISOs and the RTOs/ISOs
themselves).
    Frequency of Information Collection: One time.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission seeks to address the
increasing risks of extreme weather to bulk-power system reliability
and jurisdictional rates, and to better understand how transmission
providers assess and mitigate those risks. The Commission believes the
informational reports directed by this rulemaking will assist the
Commission in the proper administration of the FPA.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the reporting
requirement and

has determined that such a requirement is necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements. Interested
persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by
contacting Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
via email ([email protected]) or telephone ((202) 502-8663).
    Public Reporting Burden: Our estimates are based on the NERC
Compliance Registry as of April 7, 2023 and each RTO/ISO's list of
participating transmission owners per their websites, which indicates
that there are 47 transmission providers \222\ (including the six RTOs/
ISOs) and 81 transmission owners that are registered with NERC within
the United States and are subject to this rulemaking.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ The transmission service provider (TSP) function is a NERC
registration function which is similar to the transmission provider
that is referenced in the pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The TSP function is being used as a proxy to estimate the number of
transmission providers that are impacted by this proposed
rulemaking.
    \223\ The number of entities listed from the NERC Compliance
Registry reflects the omission of the Texas RE registered entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    116. The Commission estimates that the burden \224\ and cost of the
FERC-1004 are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3 (2022).
    \225\ Commission staff estimates that respondents' hourly wages
plus benefits are comparable to those of FERC employees. Therefore,
the hourly cost used in this analysis is $91.00 (or $188,922 per
year).
    \226\ The number of entities listed from the NERC Compliance
Registry reflects the omission of the Texas RE registered entities.

                          FERC-1004, Final Rule in Docket Nos. RM22-16-000 and AD21-13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      C. Annual
                                                      estimated       D. Average burden      E. Total estimated
    A. Area of modification      B. Annual number     number of       hours & cost \225\    burden hours & total
                                  of respondents     responses (1        per response          estimated cost
                                                   per respondent)                         (column C x column D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report on Extreme Weather       128 (47 TPs \226\             128   Year 1: 94.5 hours;    Year 1: 12,096 hours;
 Vulnerability Assessment (one-  and 81 TOs).                        $8,599.50.             $1,100,736.
 time).                                                              Subsequent Years: 0    Subsequent Years: 0
                                                                     hours per year; $0.    hours per year; $0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Environmental Analysis

    117. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\227\ The
actions proposed to be taken here fall within categorical exclusions in
the Commission's regulations for rules regarding information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for rules regarding sales, exchange,
and transportation of natural gas that require no construction of
facilities.\228\ Therefore, an environmental review is unnecessary and
has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Env't Pol'y Act, Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783
(1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \228\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5) & 380.4(a)(27)
(2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    118. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \229\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\230\ The Small Business Administration (SBA) sets the
threshold for what constitutes a small business. Under SBA's size
standards,\231\ transmission providers (including RTOs/ISOs) and
transmission owners fall under the category of Electric Bulk Power
Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121),\232\ with a size
threshold of 950 employees (including the entity and its
associates).\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \230\ Id. 603(c).
    \231\ 13 CFR 121.201 (2022).
    \232\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
is an industry classification system that Federal statistical
agencies use to categorize businesses for the purpose of collecting,
analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S.
economy. United States Census Bureau, North American Industry
Classification System, https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
    \233\ The threshold for the number of employees indicates the
maximum allowed for an entity and its affiliates to be considered
small. 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. We estimate that there are 128 total transmission providers
and owners that (including the six RTOs/ISOs) are affected by the final
rule. Using the list of transmission service providers from the NERC
Registry (dated April 7, 2023), we estimate that approximately 19% of
those entities are small entities. We estimate an additional average
one-time cost of $8,599.50 for each of the 128 entities affected by the
final rule.
    120. According to SBA guidance, the determination of significance
of impact ``should be seen as relative to the size of the business, the
size of the competitor's business, and the impact the regulation has on
larger competitors.'' \234\ We do not consider the estimated cost to be
a significant economic impact. As a result, pursuant to section 605(b)
of the RFA,\235\ the Commission certifies that the final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 18
(August 2017), https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/21110349/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf.
    \235\ 16 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Document Availability

    121. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov).
    122. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    123. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the

Commission's Online Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-
3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference
Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference
Room at [email protected].

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    124. This rule will become effective September 25, 2023. Each
transmission provider must file the one-time informational report
required by this final rule by October 25, 2023. The Commission has
determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
    By the Commission.
    Chairman Phillips and Commissioner Clements are concurring with a
joint statement attached.
    Commissioner Danly is concurring in part with a separate statement
attached.

    Issued: June 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    Note:  The following appendices will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

X. Appendix A: Report Questions

    For the reasons discussed in this final rule we direct transmission
providers to file a one-time informational report related to their
extreme weather vulnerability assessment policies and processes, if
any. The report must respond to the following questions.
    (Q1) As a threshold matter, state whether the transmission provider
conducts extreme weather vulnerability assessments, and if so, how
frequently it conducts those assessments.

A. Scope

    (Q2) A description of the types of extreme weather events for which
the transmission provider conducts, or plans to conduct, extreme
weather vulnerability assessments, if any. For transmission providers
that conduct, or plan to conduct, such assessments, a description of
how the transmission provider determined which extreme weather hazards
to include in the assessment (e.g., extreme storms such as hurricanes
and the associated flooding and high winds, wildfires, extreme
prolonged heat or cold, or drought conditions);
    (Q3) A description of how the transmission provider defines an
extreme weather event for the purposes of its extreme weather
vulnerability assessment, including what thresholds it uses relative to
historical measurements or probabilities of occurrence, if applicable;
    (Q4) A description of how the transmission provider selects, or
plans to select, the set of assets and operations that will be
examined;
    (Q5) A description of how the transmission provider determines, or
plans to determine, the geographic or regional scope of the analysis;
    (Q6) A description of whether and to what extent the transmission
provider considers, or plans to consider, external interdependencies,
such as interconnected utilities, other critical infrastructure sectors
(e.g., water, telecommunications) and supply chain-related
vulnerabilities, in the assessment;
    (Q7) A description of whether and to what extent the transmission
provider coordinates, or plans to coordinate, with neighboring
utilities and/or entities in other sectors that could potentially be
relevant to the assessment;
    (Q8) A description of whether and to what extent the transmission
provider engages, or plans to engage, with stakeholders in the scoping
phase of the assessment, including the processes used to identify and
engage relevant stakeholder groups and incorporate stakeholder feedback
into the extreme weather vulnerability assessment, including all
affected communities.

B. Inputs

    (Q9) A description of methods and processes the transmission
provider uses, or plans to use, to determine the meteorological data
needed for its assessment. In particular, how the transmission provider
determines whether it can rely on existing extreme weather projections,
and if so, whether such projections are adequately robust;
    (Q10) A description of how the transmission provider determines
whether to use scenario analysis, and if so, whether to do so with
multiple scenarios;
    (Q11) The extent to which it reviews neighboring transmission
providers' extreme weather vulnerability assessments, if available, to
evaluate the consistency of extreme weather projections between
transmission providers. Further, for RTOs/ISOs, a description of how it
accounts for differences between transmission owner members' extreme
weather vulnerability assessment assumptions and results;
    (Q12) The timeframe(s) and discount rate(s) selected for the
extreme weather vulnerability assessment;
    (Q13) A description of the methods and processes the transmission
provider uses, or plans to use, to create an inventory of potentially
vulnerable assets and operations.

C. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to Extreme Weather Hazards

    (Q14) A description of how the transmission provider identifies the
transmission assets or operations vulnerable to the extreme weather
events for which it conducts assessments;
    (Q15) A description of how the transmission provider uses, or plans
to use, screening analyses to test for potential vulnerabilities, as
well as how the transmission provider examines, or plans to examine,
the sensitivities of the transmission assets and operations being
studied to types and magnitudes of extreme weather events.

D. Costs of Impacts

    (Q16) A description of the methodology or process, if any, the
transmission provider uses, or plans to use, to estimate the potential
costs of extreme weather impacts on identified vulnerable assets and
operations;
    (Q17) If the transmission provider estimates such potential costs,
a description of the types of: (a) direct costs, such as replacements
or repair costs, restoration costs, associated labor costs, or
opportunity costs of lost sales, and (b) indirect costs, such as costs
associated with loss of service to electric customers and other
utilities that purchase power from the transmission provider, including
equipment damage, spoilage, and health and safety effects, in
calculating the costs of extreme weather impacts.

E. Risk Mitigation

    (Q18) A description of how the transmission provider uses, or plans
to use, the results of its assessment to develop measures to mitigate
extreme weather risks, including:
    i. How the transmission provider determines which risks should be
mitigated and the appropriate time horizon for mitigation;
    ii. How the transmission provider determines appropriate extreme
weather risk mitigation measures, including any analyses used to
determine the lowest-cost or most impactful portfolio of measures;
    (Q19) A description of how the transmission provider informs, or
plans to inform, relevant stakeholders--such as neighboring
transmission providers, RTOs/ISOs of which the transmission provider is
a member, electric customers, all affected communities, emergency
management agencies, local and state administrations, and state

utility regulators--of identified extreme weather risks and selected
mitigation measures;
    (Q20) A description of the extent to which the transmission
provider incorporates, or plans to incorporate, identified extreme
weather risks and mitigation measures into local and regional
transmission planning processes;
    (Q21) A description of how the transmission provider measures, or
plans to measure, the progress and success of extreme weather risk
mitigation measures (e.g., through reduced outages) and how it
incorporates these observations into ongoing and future extreme weather
risk mitigation actions.

XI. Appendix B: Edits Demonstrating Modifications To Report Questions
Proposed in the NOPR

    The following compares the reporting requirement proposed in the
NOPR with the reporting requirement adopted in this final rule.
Deletions from the NOPR proposal appear in brackets and additions
appear in italics. Please note that this convention does not apply to
question numbers, which appear as they do in the final rule:
    For the reasons discussed in this final rule we direct transmission
providers to file a one-time informational report related to their
extreme weather vulnerability assessment policies and processes, if
any. The report must respond to the following questions.
    (Q1) As a threshold matter, state whether the transmission provider
conducts extreme weather vulnerability assessments, and if so, how
frequently it conducts those assessments.

A. Scope

    [As a threshold matter, we propose that each transmission provider
state whether it conducts extreme weather vulnerability analyses.
Further, we propose to require each transmission provider to provide
the following information on the policies and processes they employ, or
plan to employ, for determining the scope of extreme weather
vulnerability assessments:]
    (Q2) A description of the types of extreme weather events for which
the transmission provider conducts, or plans to conduct, extreme
weather vulnerability assessments, if any. For transmission providers
that conduct, or plan to conduct, such assessments, a description of
how the transmission provider determined which extreme weather hazards
to include in the assessment (e.g., extreme storms such as hurricanes
and the associated flooding and high winds, wildfires, extreme
prolonged heat or cold, or drought conditions);
    (Q3) A description of how the transmission provider defines an
extreme weather event for the purposes of its extreme weather
vulnerability assessment, including what thresholds it uses relative to
historical measurements or probabilities of occurrence, if applicable;
    (Q4) A description of how the transmission provider selects, or
plans to select, the set of assets and operations that will be
examined;
    (Q5) A description of how the transmission provider determines, or
plans to determine, the geographic or regional scope of the analysis;
    (Q6) A description of whether and to what extent the transmission
provider considers, or plans to consider, external interdependencies,
such as interconnected utilities, other critical infrastructure sectors
(e.g., water, telecommunications) and supply chain-related
vulnerabilities, in the assessment;
    (Q7) A description of whether and to what extent the transmission
provider coordinates, or plans to coordinate, with neighboring
utilities and/or entities in other sectors that could potentially be
relevant to the assessment;
    (Q8) A description of whether and to what extent the transmission
provider engages, or plans to engage, with stakeholders in the scoping
phase of the assessment, including the processes used to identify and
engage relevant stakeholder groups and incorporate stakeholder feedback
into the extreme weather vulnerability assessment, [especially with
regard to disadvantaged or vulnerable] including all affected
communities.

B. Inputs

    (Q9) A description of methods and processes the transmission
provider uses, or plans to use, to determine the meteorological data
needed for its assessment. In particular, how the transmission provider
determines whether it can rely on existing extreme weather projections,
and if so, whether such projections are adequately robust;
    (Q10) A description of how the transmission provider determines
whether to use scenario analysis, and if so, whether to do so with
multiple scenarios;
    (Q11) The extent to which it reviews neighboring transmission
providers' extreme weather vulnerability assessments, if available, to
evaluate the consistency of extreme weather projections between
transmission providers. Further, for RTOs/ISOs, a description of how it
accounts for differences between transmission owner members' extreme
weather vulnerability assessment assumptions and results;
    (Q12) The timeframe(s) and discount rate(s) selected for the
extreme weather vulnerability assessment;
    (Q13) A description of the methods and processes the transmission
provider uses, or plans to use, to create an inventory of potentially
vulnerable assets and operations.

C. Vulnerabilities and Exposure to Extreme Weather Hazards

    (Q14) A description of how the transmission provider identifies the
transmission assets or operations vulnerable to the extreme weather
events for which it conducts assessments;
    (Q15) A description of how the transmission provider uses, or plans
to use, screening analyses to test for potential vulnerabilities, as
well as how the transmission provider examines, or plans to examine,
the sensitivities of the transmission assets and operations being
studied to types and magnitudes of extreme weather events.

D. Cost of Impacts

    (Q16) A description of the methodology or process, if any, the
transmission provider uses, or plans to use, to estimate the potential
costs of extreme weather impacts on identified vulnerable assets and
operations;
    (Q17) If the transmission provider estimates such potential costs,
a description of the types of: (a) direct costs, such as replacements
or repair costs, restoration costs, associated labor costs, or
opportunity costs of lost sales, and (b) indirect costs, such as costs
associated with loss of service to electric customers and other
utilities that purchase power from the transmission provider, including
equipment damage, spoilage, and health and safety effects, in
calculating the costs of extreme weather impacts.

E. Risk Mitigation

    (Q18) A description of how the transmission provider uses, or plans
to use, the results of its assessment to develop measures to mitigate
extreme weather risks, including:
    i. How the transmission provider determines which risks should be
mitigated and the appropriate time horizon for mitigation;
    ii. How the transmission provider determines appropriate extreme
weather risk mitigation measures, including any analyses used to
determine the lowest-cost or most impactful portfolio of measures;

    (Q19) A description of how the transmission provider informs, or
plans to inform, relevant stakeholders--such as neighboring
transmission providers, RTOs/ISOs of which the transmission provider is
a member, electric customers, all affected [and frontline] communities,
[shareholders and investors,] emergency management agencies, local and
state administrations, and state utility regulators--of identified
extreme weather risks and selected mitigation measures;
    (Q20) A description of the extent to which the transmission
provider incorporates, or plans to incorporate, identified extreme
weather risks and mitigation measures into local and regional
transmission planning processes;
    (Q21) A description of how the transmission provider measures, or
plans to measure, the progress and success of extreme weather risk
mitigation measures (e.g., through reduced outages) and how it
incorporates these observations into ongoing and future extreme risk
mitigation actions.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Time Informational Reports on Extreme   RM22-16-000
 Weather Vulnerability Assessments.
Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and        AD21-13-000
 Electric System Reliability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHILLIPS, Chairman, and CLEMENTS, Commissioner, concurring:
    1. Today's final rule will facilitate better preparation for
extreme weather by requiring transmission providers to file one-time
informational reports with the Commission discussing vulnerability
assessments that they carry out. We write separately to encourage
transmission providers to include within those reports a discussion of
the intersection of these assessments and disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission is requiring these reports pursuant to
section 304 of the Federal Power Act. Section 304 empowers the
Commission to seek information ``necessary or appropriate to assist
the Commission in the proper administration of [the FPA].'' 16
U.S.C. 825c(a). Congress provided such reports could be on a broad
range of topics. These topics include ``among other things, full
information as to assets and liabilities . . . generation,
transmission, distribution, delivery, use, and sale of electric
energy.'' Id. Although some have asked that the Commission indicate
what it plans to do with the information, as the final rule makes
clear, ``the Commission will assess whether further actions are
appropriate after viewing the reports.'' Final Rule at P 61; see
also J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corp., 142 FERC ] 61,150 at PP 11-
12 (2013) (stating that ``the Commission controls its own dockets
and has substantial discretion to manage its proceedings.''); Fla.
Mun. Power Agency v. FERC, 315 F.3d 362, 366 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
(noting that administrative agencies enjoy broad discretion to
manage their own dockets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In this proceeding and in response to a recent Commission-led
Roundtable on Environmental Justice and Equity in Infrastructure
Permitting, commenters highlighted that disadvantaged communities may
face disproportionate risks from the increasing frequency and severity
of extreme weather events, including higher utility prices and
prolonged outages.\2\ Panelists and commenters underscored that
environmental justice communities are particularly vulnerable to
Commission decisions on electric and gas rates, reliability,
resiliency, and resource mix because they suffer from higher energy
burden \3\ and often are both more vulnerable to and more at risk of
outages.\4\ For example, during Winter Storm Uri, low-income Texans
bore the brunt of prolonged power loss. Commenters noted that areas
with lower household incomes and higher percentages of ethnic
minorities remained without power for longer.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See WE ACT Comments at 2-4; WE ACT Comments, Docket No.
AD23-5-000, at 6-7 (filed May 16, 2023); Center for Biological
Diversity Comments, Docket No. AD23-5-000, at 6 (filed May 12,
2023).
    \3\ Energy burden is defined as the percentage of a household's
annual income spent on energy consumption. High energy burdens are
often defined as allocating greater than 6% of income towards energy
costs, while severe energy burdens are those greater than 10% of
income. Department of Health and Human Servs., LIHEAP Energy Burden
Evaluation Study 8 (2005), www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/comm_liheap_energyburdenstudy_apprise.pdf.
    \4\ Environmental Defense Fund Comments, Docket No. AD23-5-000,
at 4 (filed May 15, 2023).
    \5\ Americans for a Clean Energy Grid Comments, Docket No. AD23-
5-000, at 4-5 (filed May 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reports to the Commission could address how transmission
providers respond to these impacts in several ways. First, in answering
question eight regarding stakeholder engagement, we encourage
transmission providers to specifically report on how they engage with
disadvantaged and vulnerable communities as stakeholders, rather than
merely discussing how they obtain information about these communities
from other stakeholders.\6\ Transmission providers should report on how
they incorporate feedback from disadvantaged and vulnerable community
stakeholders into their extreme weather vulnerability assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See WE ACT Comments at 6; Public Interest Organizations
Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Second, beyond addressing the questions set forth in this final
rule, we encourage transmission providers to discuss how they estimate
or evaluate the cost of extreme weather vulnerabilities of transmission
assets and operations that will be specifically borne by disadvantaged
and vulnerable communities. Such discussion would benefit from a
description of how such estimates or evaluations are carried out,
including what types of direct, indirect, and/or other costs are
considered in such analyses, and whether and how duration of extreme
weather impacts are included in such estimates or evaluations.
Providing the Commission and the public with information on how
transmission providers evaluate impacts to disadvantaged and vulnerable
communities in their footprints could be a first step in developing
industry best practices for considering impacts to disadvantaged and
vulnerable communities of extreme weather risks.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ WE ACT argues that ``transmission planners need to assess
vulnerabilities and mitigate'' the risks of extreme weather events
``on the electric grid, including the negative consequences for
areas of low-income and communities of color.'' WE ACT Comments at
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Third, we encourage transmission providers, in responding to
question 21, to include a description of how the transmission provider
measures, or plans to measure the progress and success of mitigation
measures, specifically in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. The
final rule requires transmission providers to describe how they inform
affected and frontline communities, and other stakeholders, of risks
identified by extreme weather vulnerability assessments and selected
mitigation measures.\8\ Including a specific description of how
mitigation measures in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities will be
evaluated will help provide the Commission with a more complete picture
of how transmission providers address impacts generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Final Rule, Question 19 (requiring a ``description of
how the transmission provider informs, or plans to inform relevant
stakeholders--such as . . . all affected communities''); P 4 (``We
use the term `affected communities' in this final rule to include
disadvantaged, vulnerable, and frontline communities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we respectfully concur.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Willie L. Phillips,
Chairman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Clements,
Commissioner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Time Informational Reports on Extreme   RM22-16-000
 Weather Vulnerability Assessments.
Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and        AD21-13-000
 Electric System Reliability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    DANLY, Commissioner, concurring in the result:
    1. Last June, I concurred with the Commission's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) requiring one-time informational reports on extreme
weather vulnerability assessments.\9\ I wrote separately to express
that, while the question of the weather's effect on reliability is a
subject that doubtless merits study and planning, misguided government
policies (not weather) have been the root cause of the impending
reliability crises facing our markets.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ One-Time Informational Reports on Extreme Weather
Vulnerability Assessments, 179 FERC ] 61,196 (2022) (Danly, Comm'r,
concurring) (NOPR).
    \10\ Id. (Danly, Comm'r, concurring at PP 2-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Today, I write separately, not to repeat my assessment that the
United States is heading toward a reliability crisis (a prediction that
is widely shared),\11\ but to caution the Commission that it should not
lose sights of the limits of its authority under the Federal Power Act
(FPA). I acknowledge that the final rule generally adopts the NOPR
without significant modification,\12\ and that in my concurrence, I
agreed that informational reports may help the Commission identify
opportunities to avoid adverse rate impacts.\13\ However, a question
repeated by nearly a third of the commenters has given me pause and
forced me to reconsider the information requested: How exactly does the
Commission intend to use the information provided in the one-time
informational reports?\14\ In posing that question, one must also ask
the question of whether the Commission can or should request that
information in the first instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Full Committee Hearing to Examine the Reliability &
Resiliency of Elec. Servs. in the U.S. in Light of Recent
Reliability Assessments & Alerts Before the S. Comm. on Energy &
Natural Res., 118th Cong. (2023), https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2023/6/full-committee-hearing-to-examine-the-reliability-
and-resiliency-of-electric-services-in-the-u-s-in-light-of-recent-
reliability-assessments-and-alerts (statements of North American
Electric Reliability Corporation President and CEO Jim Robb and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. President and CEO Manu Asthana in response
to Senator Hoeven citing FERC Commissioners Mark Christie and
Danly).
    \12\ See One-Time Informational Reports on Extreme Weather
Vulnerability Assessments, Final Rule, 183 FERC ] 61,192 (2023)
(Final Rule).
    \13\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,196 (Danly, Comm'r, at P 2).
    \14\ See Edison Electric Institute, August 31, 2022 Initial
Comments, at 3 (``the Commission should . . . clarify how the one-
time informational reports will be used.''); id. at 7 (``The
Commission should specify how it plans to use the information
contained in the onetime reports. While the Commission notes that
the reports `will enhance the Commission's understanding of whether,
and if so, how transmission providers are assessing risks to
transmission assets and operations as a result of extreme weather
events,' and that `it is important for the Commission to understand
whether and to what extent such assessments are being conducted to
assist the Commission in the proper administration of the [Federal
Power Act],' it does not detail how it plans to utilize the
information included in the reports to accomplish these ends.'')
(footnote omitted); Eversource Energy Service Co., August 30, 2022
Comments, at 5 (``Eversource also respectfully requests that the
Commission clarify how it will use the one-time reports and the
information contained therein.''); PJM Transmission Owners, August
30, 2022 Comments, at 2 (``The Commission should provide
clarification regarding how the one-time reports will be used for
developing future transmission planning requirements.''); id.
(``[T]he Indicated PJM Transmission Owners would like to better
understand how the Commission intends to use this data.''); MISO
Transmission Owners, August 30, 2022 Comments, at 2. (``[T]he MISO
Transmission Owners encourage the Commission to explain in the final
rule how it intends to act on the information provided by
respondents.''1); id. at 4 (``The Extreme Weather Reports NOPR does
not explain how these one-time reports will assist the Commission in
accomplishing its goals.''); Xcel Energy Services, August 29, 2022
Initial Comments, at 5 (``the Commission should provide clarity
about how it intends to use the information provided under this
NOPR, if adopted''); id. at 6 (``[T]he manner in which the
Commission intends to use information obtained through this NOPR, if
adopted, is unclear.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. While FPA section 304 \15\ empowers the Commission to require
special reports, it does not give the Commission carte blanche to
require public utilities to file special reports disclosing anything it
sees fit. The Commission must find that the special report is
``necessary or appropriate to assist [it] in the proper
administration'' of the FPA \16\--that is, the information sought must
``aid the Commission in exercising its powers.'' \17\ For instance,
information on a public utilities' community service, which had no
effect on the rates charged, would not ``aid[] the Commission in
exercising its powers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 16 U.S.C. 825c(a).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ FPC v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 337 U.S. 498, 505 (1949)
(discussing the similar power set forth in section 10(a) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA)). ``It is, of course, well settled that the
comparable provisions of the [NGA] and the [FPA] are to be construed
in pari materia.'' Ky. Utils. Co. v. FERC, 760 F.2d 1321, 1325 n.6
(D.C. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Case law involving the FPA has
stated similarly. See Duke Power Co. v. FPC, 401 F.2d 930, 947 &
n.131 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (``utilities are required . . . to supply the
Commission with essential information'') (emphasis added) (citing 16
U.S.C. 825(b), 825(c)(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In addition, the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that the
Commission only collect information that is ``necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information [will] have practical utility'' \18\ Can the agency ``use
[the] information'' it collects? \19\ If the information proposed to be
collected by an agency is found ``unnecessary[,] for any reason, the
[Commission] may not engage in the collection of [the] information.''
\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 44 U.S.C. 3508; id. Sec.  3502(11) (defining ``practical
utility'' as meaning ``the ability of an agency to use information,
particularly the capability to process such information in a timely
and useful fashion'').
    \19\ Id. section 3502(11).
    \20\ Id. section 3508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The final rule declares that the one-time informational report
on policies and processes related to extreme weather vulnerability
assessments is ``necessary or appropriate'' for the Commission to
oversee the development and enforcement of reliability standards under
FPA section 215 and to ensure that rates, terms, and conditions are
just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential under
FPA sections 205 and 206.\21\ A persuasive case can be made that most
of the information to be collected in the one-time informational
reports could aid the Commission in exercising these powers. However,
the practical utility of the information sought from two of the
questions is uncertain at best: first, question 8, which asks how a
transmission provider identifies and engages ``affected communities''
and incorporates those communities' feedback into its extreme weather
vulnerability assessment,\22\ and second, question 19, which asks how a
transmission provider informs ``affected communities'' of identified
extreme weather risks and selected mitigation measures.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Final Rule, 183 FERC ] 61,192 at PP 20, 59.
    \22\ Id. App. A, Question 8.
    \23\ Id. App. A, Question 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. How exactly are ``affected communities'' relevant here, and
under what provision of the FPA? FPA sections 205 and 206 empower the
Commission to ensure that wholesale transmission rates, terms, and
conditions are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential. FPA section 215 empowers the Commission to oversee the
development and enforcement of mandatory standards to ensure the
reliability of the bulk-power system, which ``does not include
facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy.'' \24\ A
``community,'' defined as

a ``neighborhood, vicinity, or locality,'' \25\ does not exactly evoke
an image of a customer paying wholesale transmission rates. Rather, one
imagines local retail customers paying the local utility to deliver
electricity on a distribution line to power one's business or dwelling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (emphasis added).
    \25\ Community, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. I wonder what we expect to hear back in response. Under what
circumstances would a wholesaler ever engage with and inform a retail
customer? Would we expect a wholesale food vendor, Sysco, for example,
to engage with a restaurant's retail customers on how it plans for
potential disruptions of the beef supply, and to then inform those
customers when supplies have been disrupted and then further consult
with them on how limited supplies will be allocated? No. Put in the
terms of the FPA, would engaging retail customers in forecasting or
informing retail customers of risks and mitigation measures render
otherwise unlawful wholesale transmission rates just and reasonable?
Doubtful. Could it be that the Commission envisions that transmission
providers will submit information on some type of ``flex alert''
initiative that encourages retail customers to voluntarily conserve
electricity, which may relate to the adequate reliability of the bulk-
power system under FPA section 215? Perhaps. But if so, why not just
make that clear.
    8. The Commission ought to be more judicious in use of FPA section
304. Its powers are not without limit. Congress has declared that the
burdens of these reports should be minimized, and that the usefulness
of information collected by the government maximized.\26\ We should
better explain why we are asking for this data or not collect it at
all. The Commission should not require transmission providers to file
information for which it has no use or is unwilling to explain why it
is being asked for in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the result.

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

[FR Doc. 2023-13268 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 49928-49929]
[DOCID:fr16au10-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1401-000; Docket No. EL10-76-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Green Energy
Express LLC; 21st Century Transmission Holdings, LLC; Notice of
Technical Conference

August 3, 2010.
    By order dated July 26, 2010, in Docket No. ER10-1401-000, the
Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed staff to convene a
technical conference regarding California Independent System Operator
Corporation's (CAISO) proposed Revised Transmission Planning Process
(RTPP).\1\ Take notice that such conference will be held on August 24,
2010 at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street, Washington,
DC 20426, beginning at 9 a.m. (EDT) in the Commission Meeting Room. The
technical conference will be led by Commission staff. Commissioners may
attend the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 132 FERC] 61,067 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss the issues
raised by CAISO's proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission
Tariff (Tariff) to implement its RTPP in Docket No. ER10-1401-000 and
obtain additional information regarding CAISO's proposal. Because
CAISO's RTPP filing presents issues that may be interrelated with the
Petition for Declaratory Order filed by Green Energy Express LLC and
21st Century Transmission Holdings, LLC, in Docket No. EL10-76-000,
parties are hereby notified that issues pending in Docket No. EL10-76-
000 may be discussed at the technical conference.
    CAISO and the parties that choose to participate in the conference
should be prepared to address the following topics, among others:
     How the RTPP incorporates participation from all
stakeholders, including the California Transmission Planning Group, and
complies with the transmission planning principles of Order No. 890;
     How the various categories of transmission projects will
be defined and differentiated;
     To what extent non-incumbent transmission developers can
sponsor transmission projects identified in the RTPP and become
participating transmission owners in the CAISO;
     The selection criteria for projects in the various
transmission categories, including which proposals have priority during
the evaluation process;
     How projects submitted during the 2008/2009 Request Window
will be processed, with respect to both the current Tariff and the
proposed RTPP; and
     The integration and coordination of RTPP studies with
those done under the Large Generator Interconnection Process, and
related assumptions, data, and planning criteria.
    A subsequent notice will be issued by the Commission providing an
agenda of the conference.
    A free webcast of this event will be available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with internet access who desires to listen to this
event can do so by navigating http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events
and locating this event in the calendar. The event will contain a link
to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for
the webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via
phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://
www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY); or send a Fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    All parties are permitted to attend. For more information on this
conference, please contact Robert Petrocelli at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Katie Detweiler at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20139 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5097-5101]
[DOCID:fr29ja08-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0963; A-1-FRL-8522-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Ozone Maintenance Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maine, that includes four separate
8-hour ozone maintenance plans. The Clean Air Act requires that areas
that are designated attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and also
had been previously designated either nonattainment or maintenance for
the 1-hour ozone standard, develop a plan showing how the state will
maintain the ozone standard for the area. Maine's maintenance plans
include an emissions inventory, a plan for how the state will
demonstrate and track progress of continued maintenance of the
standard, a commitment to continue ozone monitoring, and a contingency
plan that

will ensure that any violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is promptly
addressed. The intended effect of this action is to approve these four
maintenance plans into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 31, 2008, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 28, 2008. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2007-0963 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2007-0963,'' Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail
code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2007-0963. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-

mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; the Bureau of
Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First
Floor Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta,
ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is a Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan?
III. How Has Maine Addressed the Components of a Section 110(a)(1)
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maine on August 7, 2006. The SIP revision
consists of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour
ozone maintenance plans for four areas in Maine. Maine held a public
hearing on the proposed SIP revision on July 6, 2006. The maintenance
plans demonstrate how the state intends to maintain the 8-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. These plans replace the
existing ozone maintenance plan for the former Hancock and Waldo
Counties 1-hour marginal ozone nonattainment area. That plan had been
included as part of the redesignation request for this area as required
under 175A of the Clean Air Act. (See 62 FR 9081; February 28, 1997.)
    Maine has four areas that are required to submit a CAA Section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan. This requirement applies to areas that are
designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 8-hour ozone standard
and also had a designation of either nonattainment or attainment with
an approved maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard as of June
15, 2004 (the effective date of the 8-hour ozone standard designation
for these areas).\1\ In Maine, these areas are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 69 FR 23857.

Area 1--Portions of York and Cumberland Counties;
Area 2--Portions of Androscoggin and all of Kennebec County;
Area 3--Portions of Knox and Lincoln Counties; and
Area 4--Portions of Hancock and Waldo Counties.

    The exact cites and towns in these areas are listed in the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, and in the Maine
submittal. The TSD and Maine's submittal are available in the docket
for this action or from the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this action.

II. What Is a Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states submit
to EPA plans to maintain any NAAQS promulgated

by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were
either nonattainment or maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a plan to demonstrate
the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA established
June 15, 2007, three years after the effective date of the initial 8-
hour ozone designations, as the deadline for submission of plans for
these areas.
    On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance \2\ that applies, in part, to
areas that are designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 8-hour
ozone standard and either have an approved 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan or were designated nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. The
purpose of the guidance is to assist the states in the development of a
SIP which addresses the maintenance requirements found in Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA. There are five components of a Section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan which are: (1) An attainment inventory, which is based
on actual typical summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for a ten-year period
from a base year as chosen by the state; (2) a maintenance
demonstration which shows how the area will remain in compliance with
the 8-hour ozone standard for 10 years after the effective date of
designations (June 15, 2004); (3) a commitment to continue to operate
air quality monitors; (4) a contingency plan that will ensure that a
violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is promptly addressed; and (5) an
explanation of how the state will track the progress of the maintenance
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour
Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act,'' EPA
memorandum dated May 20, 2005, from Lydia Wegman to Air Division
Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. How Has Maine Addressed the Components of a Section 110(a)(1) 8-
Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan?

    EPA has determined that the ME DEP (Maine Department of
Environmental Protection) 8-hour ozone maintenance plans address all of
the necessary components of a Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan as discussed below.
    A. Emissions Inventory: An emissions inventory is an itemized list
of emission estimates for sources of air pollution in a given area for
a specified time period. ME DEP has provided a comprehensive and
current emissions inventory for ozone precursors (NOX and
VOCs) in the four areas. ME DEP uses 2002 as the base year from which
it projects emissions. The submittal also includes an explanation of
the methodology used for determining the anthropogenic emissions
(point, area, and mobile sources) in the maintenance areas. The
inventory is based on emissions for a typical ozone season day. The
term ``typical'' refers to emissions expected on a typical weekday
during the months where ozone concentrations are typically the highest.
    B. Maintenance Demonstration and Tracking Progress: With regard to
demonstrating continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard, ME
DEP projects that the total emissions from the four maintenance areas
will decrease during the ten-year maintenance period. ME DEP has
projected emissions from 2002 until 2016. The projected trend in
emissions is downward. This clearly demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone
standard will be maintained for the ten year period between 2004 and
2014, which is the required test, even though a specific inventory was
not prepared for 2014.
    Tables 1 through 4 show the total VOC and NOX emissions
for each of the four maintenance areas in Maine for the base year
(2002), an interim year (2009), and a final year (2016).\3\ More
detailed emissions tables can be found in the TSD for this action and
the ME DEP submittal. The trend in emissions is downward, for each
pollutant, in each area. As such, the plan demonstrates that, from an
emissions projections standpoint, emissions are projected to decrease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It should be noted that the emissions shown in these tables
are for the entire two counties named, rather than the somewhat
smaller maintenance area, due to the difficulty of parsing out
inventory data to a sub-county basis. This difference is not
considered significant, and does not affect the downward trend shown
in the emissions.

                            Table 1.--Maintenance Area 1--York and Cumberland County
                                [Emissions expressed in tons per summer week day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                     2002 VOC    2002 NOX    2009 VOC    2009 NOX    2016 VOC    2016 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................     80.191      83.495      65.290      53.028      62.092      36.499
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 2.--Maintenance Area 2--Androscoggin and Kennebec County
                                [Emissions expressed in tons per summer week day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                     2002 VOC    2002 NOX    2009 VOC    2009 NOX    2016 VOC    2016 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................     31.820      32.322      25.430      21.042      23.405      13.608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 3.--Maintenance Area 3--Knox and Lincoln County
                                [Emissions expressed in tons per summer week day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                     2002 VOC    2002 NOX    2009 VOC    2009 NOX    2016 VOC    2016 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................     18.417      18.128      15.827      13.393      15.060      11.661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table 4.--Maintenance Area 4--Hancock and Waldo County
                                [Emissions expressed in tons per summer week day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                     2002 VOC    2002 NOX    2009 VOC    2009 NOX    2016 VOC    2016 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................     24.034      18.355      18.887      11.103      17.143       7.426
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the formation of ozone is dependent on
a number of variables which cannot be estimated using only emissions
growth and reduction calculations. These variables include, among
others, weather and the transport of ozone precursors from outside the
maintenance area. In its submittal, ME DEP has indicated that the state
will track the progress of the maintenance plans by updating the
emissions inventory for the four areas approximately every three years.
The emissions inventory update will include point, area, and mobile
source emissions. Information from these future updates will be
compared with the 2002 inventory data to track maintenance of the
standard.
    C. Ambient Monitoring: With regard to the ambient air monitoring
component of a maintenance plan, Maine's submittal describes the ozone
monitoring network in Maine and commits to continue operating air
quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard. If any changes to the
monitoring locations become necessary, Maine commits to working with
EPA to ensure that the adequacy of the monitoring network is
maintained. Based on ozone data from 2006, all of Maine meets the 8-
hour ozone standard. Furthermore, preliminary ozone data for 2007 shows
that all of Maine continues to meet this standard.
    D. Contingency Measures: EPA interprets Section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA to require that the state develop a contingency plan that will
ensure that any violation of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. Therefore,
as required by Section 110(a)(1) of the Act, Maine has listed possible
contingency measures in the event of a future ozone air quality
problem. At the conclusion of each ozone season, the Maine DEP will
evaluate whether the design value for each of the maintenance areas
meets the 8-hour ozone standard.\4\ If the design value for an area
does not meet the standard, the DEP will evaluate the potential causes
of this design value increase. The DEP will examine whether this
increase is due to an increase in local in-state emissions or an
increase in upwind out-of-state emissions. If an increase in in-state
emissions is determined to be a contributing factor to the design value
increase, Maine will evaluate the projected in-state emissions for the
relevant maintenance area for the ozone season in the following year.
If in-state emissions are not expected to satisfactorily decrease in
the following ozone season in order to mitigate the violation, Maine
will implement one or more of the contingency measures listed in the
submittal, or substitute a new VOC or NOX control measures
to achieve additional in-state emission reductions. The contingency
measures(s) will be selected by the Governor, or the Governor's
designee, within 6 months of the end of the ozone season for which
contingency measures have been determined necessary. Further details on
the types of possible control measures to be used as contingencies can
be found in the TSD and the Maine submittal. Maine's submittal
satisfies EPA's contingency measure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The design value at an ozone monitor is the 3-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration measured at that monitor. The design value for an area
is the highest design value recorded at any monitor in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving into the Maine SIP the Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the four areas in Maine
that are required to have such plans. These areas are: Portions of York
and Cumberland Counties; portions of Androscoggin and all of Kennebec
County; portions of Knox and Lincoln Counties; and portions of Hancock
and Waldo Counties.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March
31, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by February 28, 2008.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on March 31, 2008 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because
it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a
federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 31, 2008. Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 16, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Section 52.1023 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1023  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (i) Approval: EPA is approving the 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone
maintenance plans in the four areas of the state required to have a
110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard. These areas are as follows: portions of York and
Cumberland Counties; portions of Androscoggin County and all of
Kennebec County; portions of Knox and Lincoln Counties; and portions of
Hancock and Waldo Counties. These maintenance plans were submitted to
EPA on August 3, 2006.

[FR Doc. E8-1416 Filed 1-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27854]
[FR Doc No: E9-13683]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Joint Hearing with the Department
of Labor to examine target date funds and similar investment options on
Thursday, June 18, 2009 beginning at 9 a.m.
    The Joint Hearing will take place in the Auditorium of the
Department of Labor's headquarters at 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The Joint Hearing will be open to the public with
seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject
to security checks.
    Discussion topics at the Joint Hearing will include issues related
to how target date fund managers determine asset allocations and
changes to asset allocations (including glide paths) over the course of
a fund's operation; how they select and monitor underlying investments;
how the foregoing and related risks are disclosed to investors; and the
approaches or factors for comparing and evaluating target date funds.
Joint Hearing participants will include representatives of plan
participants and beneficiaries, plan sponsors, investor organizations,
academia and the financial services industry.
    For further information, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 5, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13683 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P