[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51665-51669]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19965]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0005; FRL-7611-02-OW]

Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the
Application of Pesticides; Reissuance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final permit issuance.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces issuance by all 10 Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regions of the final 2021 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide general permit (PGP)--
the 2021 PGP. The 2021 PGP, which has an effective date of October 31,
2021, replaces the existing permit (2016 PGP) that expires at midnight
on October 31, 2021, and authorizes certain point source discharges
from the application of pesticides to waters of the United States in
accordance with the terms and conditions described therein. EPA is
issuing this permit for five (5) years in all areas of the country
where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.

DATES: The permit becomes effective on October 31, 2021, and will
expire at

midnight, October 31, 2026. In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this
permit shall be considered issued for the purpose of judicial review on
September 30, 2021. Under section 509(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
judicial review of this general permit can be requested by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120
days after the permit is considered issued. Under section 509(b) of the
CWA, the requirements of this permit may not be challenged later in
civil or criminal proceedings to enforce these requirements. In
addition, this permit may not be challenged in other agency
proceedings. Deadlines for submittal of a Notices of Intent (NOI) to be
covered, if required, are provided in Part 1.2.3, Table 1-2 of the 2021
PGP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the final
permit, contact the appropriate EPA Regional office listed in Section
I.D of this document, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or contact Chelsea Durant, EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
202-564-2290; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic
versions of the 2021 PGP and Fact Sheet are also available on EPA's
NPDES website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    C. Geographic Coverage
    D. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this final permit?
II. Background
III. Summary of the 2021 PGP
    A. Summary of Updates to the 2016 PGP and From the Proposed 2021
PGP
    B. Summary of 2021 PGP Terms and Requirements
    C. 2021 PGP Cost Analysis and Future Cost-Benefit Considerations
IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
V. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if you apply pesticides, under
the use patterns in Part 1.1.1. of the 2021 PGP, that result in a
discharge to waters of the United States in one of the geographic areas
identified in Appendix C of the 2021 PGP. Potentially affected
entities, as categorized in the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS), may include, but are not limited to:

         Table 1--Entities Potentially Regulated by the 2021 PGP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category                   NAICS         potentially affected
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural entities--General  111 Crop           Producers of crops
 agricultural interests,         Production.        mainly for food and
 farmers/producers, forestry,                       fiber, including
 and irrigation.                                    farms, orchards,
                                                    groves, greenhouses,
                                                    and nurseries that
                                                    have irrigation
                                                    ditches requiring
                                                    pest control.
                                113110 Timber      The operation of
                                 Tract Operations.  timber tracts for
                                                    the purpose of
                                                    selling standing
                                                    timber.
                                113210 Forest      Growing trees for
                                 Nurseries          reforestation and/or
                                 Gathering of       gathering forest
                                 Forest Products.   products, such as
                                                    gums, barks, balsam
                                                    needles, rhizomes,
                                                    fibers, Spanish
                                                    moss, ginseng, and
                                                    truffles.
                                221310 Water       Operating irrigation
                                 Supply for         systems.
                                 Irrigation.
Pesticide parties (includes     325320 Pesticide   Formulation and
 pesticide manufacturers,        and Other          preparation of
 other pesticide users/          Agricultural       agricultural pest
 interests, and consultants).    Chemical           control chemicals.
                                 Manufacturing.
Public health parties           923120             Government
 (includes mosquito or other     Administration     establishments
 vector control districts and    of Public Health   primarily engaged in
 commercial applicators that     Programs.          the planning,
 service these).                                    administration, and
                                                    coordination of
                                                    public health
                                                    programs and
                                                    services, including
                                                    environmental health
                                                    activities.
Resource management parties     924110             Government
 (includes State departments     Administration     establishments
 of fish and wildlife, State     of Air and Water   primarily engaged in
 departments of pesticide        Resource and       the administration,
 regulation, State               Solid Waste        regulation, and
 environmental agencies, and     Management         enforcement of air
 universities).                  Programs.          and water resource
                                                    programs; the
                                                    administration and
                                                    regulation of water
                                                    and air pollution
                                                    control and
                                                    prevention programs;
                                                    the administration
                                                    and regulation of
                                                    flood control
                                                    programs; the
                                                    administration and
                                                    regulation of
                                                    drainage development
                                                    and water resource
                                                    consumption
                                                    programs; and
                                                    coordination of
                                                    these activities at
                                                    intergovernmental
                                                    levels.
                                924120             Government
                                 Administration     establishments
                                 of Conservation    primarily engaged in
                                 Programs.          the administration,
                                                    regulation,
                                                    supervision and
                                                    control of land use,
                                                    including
                                                    recreational areas;
                                                    conservation and
                                                    preservation of
                                                    natural resources;
                                                    erosion control;
                                                    geological survey
                                                    program
                                                    administration;
                                                    weather forecasting
                                                    program
                                                    administration; and
                                                    the administration
                                                    and protection of
                                                    publicly and
                                                    privately owned
                                                    forest lands.
                                                    Government
                                                    establishments
                                                    responsible for
                                                    planning,
                                                    management,
                                                    regulation and
                                                    conservation of
                                                    game, fish, and
                                                    wildlife
                                                    populations,
                                                    including wildlife
                                                    management areas and
                                                    field stations; and
                                                    other administrative
                                                    matters relating to
                                                    the protection of
                                                    fish, game, and
                                                    wildlife are
                                                    included in this
                                                    industry.
Utility parties (includes       221 Utilities....  Provide electric
 utilities).                                        power, natural gas,
                                                    steam supply, water
                                                    supply, and sewage
                                                    removal through a
                                                    permanent
                                                    infrastructure of
                                                    lines, mains, and
                                                    pipes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0005; FRL-7611-02-OW. Although all documents in
the docket are listed in an index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically through
www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and EPA staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are
currently closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. When the EPA Docket Center and Reading
Room reopen, publicly available docket materials will be available in
hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

C. Geographic Coverage

    EPA provides permit coverage for classes of point source discharges
of pollutants that occur in areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting
authority. The geographic coverage of the 2021 PGP is listed in
Appendix C of the permit.

D. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this final permit?

    For EPA Region 1, contact George Papadopoulos at tel.: (617) 918-
1579; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For Puerto Rico, contact Sergio
Bosques at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Carissa Moncavage at tel.: (215) 814-
5798; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact John Colletti at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact William F. Cooper at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Alex Owutaka at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact Margaret Kennedy at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Bilin Basu at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background

    Section 301(a) of the CWA provides that ``the discharge of any
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the discharge is in
compliance with certain other Sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).
The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A) any addition of
any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source and (B) any
addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the
ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating
craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is any ``discernible,
confined and discrete conveyance'' but does not include ``agricultural
stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.'' 33
U.S.C. 1362(14).
    The term ``pollutant'' includes among other things ``garbage . . .
chemical wastes, biological materials . . . and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(6).
    A person may discharge a pollutant without violating the Section
301 prohibition by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to
herein as ``coverage'') under a Section 402 NPDES permit (33 U.S.C.
1342). Under Section 402(a), EPA may ``issue a permit for the discharge
of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding Section
1311(a)'' upon certain conditions required by the Act.
    EPA issued the first Pesticide General Permit (``2011 PGP'') on
October 31, 2011, in response to the United States Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling vacating EPA's 2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides.
National Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir.
2009). EPA developed the PGP to control point source discharges of
biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue into
waters of the United States. In 2016, EPA issued the second PGP (2016
PGP). EPA is issuing the 2021 PGP to replace the 2016 PGP which expires
at midnight on October 31, 2021. Similar to the 2011 PGP and 2016 PGP,
the 2021 PGP provides coverage for certain point source discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States in areas where EPA is the
NPDES permitting authority.
    EPA published the draft 2021 PGP and accompanying Fact Sheet in the
Federal Register on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4070), soliciting comments
on the draft permit. EPA also conducted formal consultation with Indian
Tribal Governments. EPA received 8 written comment letters on the draft
permit. EPA considered all comments received during the comment period
in preparing the final permit. EPA responded to all significant
comments in the Response to Comment Document which is available as part
of the docket for this permit.

III. Summary of the 2021 PGP

A. Summary of Updates to the 2016 PGP and From the Proposed 2021 PGP

    While the requirements of the 2021 PGP remain the same as those in
the 2016 PGP, some minor updates have been added and are discussed in
more detail in the 2021 PGP Fact Sheet. The draft 2021 PGP was proposed
on January 15, 2021 and EPA proposed keeping the same conditions and
requirements as the 2016 PGP as well as the following changes:
     Removed the out of date NOI provision that provided
automatic coverage for all Operators until January 12, 2017.
     Replaced the requirement to use the EPA's eNOI system with
EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool (NeT) when preparing and submitting NOIs,
NOTs, and annual reports.
     Updated Appendix A, Definitions, Abbreviations, and
Acronyms, to include the terms ``Pesticide discharges to waters of the
United States from pesticide application'' and ``pesticide residue,''
as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
     Modified Appendix B, Standard Permit Conditions, to ensure
consistency with 40 CFR 122.41.
     Updated Appendix C, Areas Covered, to reflect coverage
changes by removing the State of Idaho, and added Indian Country within
Virginia and Indiana.
    In response to the public comments received and the Endangered
Species Act Section 7 consultation, below is a summary of changes to
the draft 2021 PGP and discussed in more detail in the 2021 PGP Fact
Sheet:
     Clarified Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the PGP by changing the phrase
``not likely to adversely affect'' and clarified the supporting
documentation to be submitted with the Notice of Intent for the
eligibility criterion selected. Appendix D, Notice of Intent form, and
Appendix I, Endangered Species Procedures, are also updated to reflect

changes made in Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the permit.
     Corrected Part 1.2.3 of the PGP by adding back the
statement that Decision-makers may submit multiple NOIs with different
activities.
     Clarified Part 1.6 of the PGP by adding the term ``as a
result of a separate federal action.''
     Updated Part 2.2.3.b of the PGP to add cultural methods to
the list of management options Decision-maker must evaluate when
developing Pest Management Measures for animal pest control.
     Updated Part 9.0 of the PGP to reflect state and tribal
Clean Water Act Section 401 certifications.
     Updated Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, Appendix
A of the PGP to:
    [cir] Correct the effective date in the definition for the
Decision-maker who is or will be required to submit an NOI.
    [cir] update the definition for the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern to include the 2021
biological opinion.
    [cir] add the definition for ``Take''.
    [cir] add missing acronyms.
     Updated Appendix C of the PGP, Areas Covered, to remove
tribes who denied coverage under the permit, and to remove Texas' oil
and gas activities.
     Corrected Appendix F of the PGP, Pesticide Discharge
Evaluation Worksheet, by adding an introduction to the coversheet and
updating the instructions to point Operators to Part 7.3 of the PGP.
     Updated Appendix I of the PGP, Endangered Species
Procedures, to include list of pesticides that a NMFS' biological
opinion has determined the labeled use would jeopardize the continued
existence of ESA-listed species and/or adversely modify designated
critical habitat.

B. Summary of 2021 PGP Terms and Requirements

    The 2021 PGP is similar to the 2016 PGP, and is structured in the
same nine parts: (1) Coverage under This Permit, (2) Technology-Based
Effluent Limitations, (3) Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations, (4)
Monitoring, (5) Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, (6) Corrective
Action, (7) Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting, (8) EPA Contact
Information and Mailing Addresses, and (9) Permit Conditions Applicable
to Specific States (including Territories) and Indian Country.
Additionally, as with the 2016 PGP, the 2021 PGP includes nine
appendices with additional conditions and guidance for permittees: (A)
Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, (B) Standard Permit
Conditions, (C) Areas Covered, (D) Notice of Intent (NOI) form, (E)
Notice of Termination (NOT) form, (F) Pesticide Discharge Evaluation
Worksheet (PDEW), (G) Annual Reporting Template, (H) Adverse Incident
Report Template, and (I) Endangered Species Procedures. A summary of
the 2021 PGP's requirements are provided in the 2021 PGP Fact Sheet.

C. 2021 PGP Cost Analysis and Future Cost-Benefit Considerations

    The cost analysis accompanying this final permit monetizes and
quantifies certain incremental cost impacts of the final permit changes
as compared to the 2016 PGP. EPA analyzed each change in the 2021 PGP
considering the previous permit's requirements. The objective of the
cost analysis is to show where or to what extent the 2021 PGP
requirements impose an incremental increase in administrative and
compliance costs (such as sampling and monitoring costs) on Operators
in relation to costs that are already accounted for in the 2016 PGP.
EPA expects no incremental cost impact on entities that will be covered
under the 2021 PGP, including small businesses, since the requirements
in the permit are substantively the same as those found in both the
2016 PGP as well as the 2011 PGP. For further discussion, see Appendix
D of the fact sheet.
    More broadly, EPA notes that additional unquantified costs and
benefits result from this action. In developing the next PGP (or
another NPDES general permit, as appropriate), EPA plans to estimate
the broader impacts arising from these actions, including costs and
benefits. Estimates under consideration may include: (1) Assessing how
costs and benefits are attributed between the PGP and applicable water
quality standards (including TMDLs) that may be in effect; (2)
developing a new modeling framework to assess how regulated entities
understand and implement control measures relating to existing and new
permit obligations; (3) examining whether any underlying cost and
benefit assumptions need to be updated; (4) examining more broadly how
EPA can analyze benefits when developing permits; (5) developing more
robust approaches to assessing uncertainties associated with the
analytic approaches, including how to quantitatively assess
uncertainties of key assumptions; and (6) developing a framework to
analyze the effort of cooperative federalism.

IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    The 2021 PGP is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

V. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA believes that the 2021 PGP will
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations,
and/or indigenous peoples because the requirements in the permit apply
equally to all pesticide applicators in areas where EPA is the
permitting authority. The provisions in the general permit increase the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations.

VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in E.O.
13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA
directly implements the NPDES Program, including the 2021 PGP when it
is finalized, in Indian country; therefore, in compliance with EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA
consulted with tribal officials early in the process to allow tribes to
have meaningful and timely input into the renewal of the PGP. In the
course of this consultation, EPA undertook the following activities:
     May 8, 2020--EPA emailed notification letters to tribal
leaders initiating consultation and coordination on the renewal of the
PGP.
     June 9, 2020--EPA held an informational webinar open to
all tribal representatives and reserved the last part of the
teleconference for official consultation comments. No official comments
were received during the webinar.

    EPA did not receive any comments during the formal tribal
consultation period. EPA notes that as part of the finalization of this
permit, the agency completed Section 401 certification procedures with
all applicable tribes where this permit will apply (see Part 9 and
Appendix C of the PGP).
    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Javier Laureano,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 2.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Carmen R. Guerrero-P[eacute]rez,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2
Caribbean Office.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Catherine A. Libertz,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 3.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Jeaneanne M. Gettle,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 4.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Tera L. Fong,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Troy Hill,
Deputy Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Jeffery Robichaud,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 7.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Humberto Garcia,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 8.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Tom[aacute]s Torres,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.

    Dated: September 8, 2021.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-19965 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8170]
[DOCID:fr24fe09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1186; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tower, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Tower, MN.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Tower
Municipal Airport, Tower, MN. This rule also updates the geographic
coordinates for the airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance
the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at
Tower Municipal Airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, May 7, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817)
321-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 25, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace at Tower,
MN (73 FR 71569, Docket No. FAA-2008-1186). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
that Order. With the exception of editorial changes, and the changes
described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Tower Municipal Airport,
Tower, MN. This rule also updates the geographic coordinates of Tower
Municipal Airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Tower Municipal Airport,
Tower, MN.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface.
* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Tower, MN [New]

Tower Municipal Airport, MN
    (Lat. 47[deg]49'05'' N., long. 92[deg]17'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Tower Municipal Airport, excluding that
airspace within Prohibited Area P-205.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on February 12, 2009.
Roger M. Trevino,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center.
 [FR Doc. E9-3817 Filed 2-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


E Mail Mike Benoit < MBenoit@ ckrc. org>

02/ 08/ 2005 11: 49 AM To Jim Berlow/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject RE: Urgent: Limited request for additional comments Jim,

I have received ( but not yet read) the notice. I had the temerity to take a long weekend to visit my brother in the SF Bay area, and just returned. I'll probably talk to you soon.

Mike  Original Message

From: Berlow. Jim@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Berlow. Jim@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11: 12 AM To: RobertElam@ americanchemistry. com; Mike Benoit; crwi@ erols. com; jpew@ earthjustice. org; dcase@ etc. org; sholt@ gchi. com; rdevin@ permafix fix. com; Bmorris@ norlitecorp. com Cc: Galbraith. Michael@ epamail. epa. gov; Davis. Hugh@ epamail. epa. gov; Silverman. Steven@ epamail. epa. gov; behan. frank@ epamail. epa. gov; holloway. bob@ epamail. epa. gov; garg. shiva@ epamail. epa. gov Subject: Urgent: Limited request for additional comments Please find attached a direct request for comments on a limited number of issues that were created by the comments on the proposed hazardous waste combustion MACT rule.

There will be no Federal Register notice for this request. Comments will be due by March 7, 2005, and extensions will not be considered.

I am providing two attachments: 1) a cover note explaining the request and how to comment, and 2) a discussion of the issues on which we are seeking comment.

Please send an acknowledgement reply email that you have received this message and the two attachments. We will call to confirm receipt from anyone who does not reply by Monday February 7.

Please call Mike Galbraith on 703 605 0567 with questions. I can be reached on 703 308 8414.

Thanks.

( See attached file: coverfinal. doc)( See attached file: notice2 4 05. doc)


GLOBAL CHANGE MID-CYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

DRAFT AGENDA

Friday, January, 4, 2008

10:30 am – 12:30 pm Eastern Time

Participation by Teleconference Only

866-299-3188

code:<PHONE_NUMBER>#

10:30-10:40am	Welcome	Dr. Milton Russell,

	-  Roll Call	Subcommittee Chair

	- Overview of Agenda

10:40-10:45 am	Administrative Procedures	Ms. Monica Rodia,

		Subcommittee DFO

10:45-11:05 am	Overview of Charge	Dr. Joel Scheraga,

		Office of Research and 				Development (ORD), & Dr.  			Milton Russell, Subcommittee 			Chair

11:05-11:40 am     Global Change Research Program:	Dr. Joel Scheraga,

	 Summary of Progress Made	ORD

	- Brief Program Overview for New

	  BOSC Subcommittee Members

	- Progress Addressing BOSC Recommendations

	- Additional Progress and New Activities

	- Progress Towards Completion of Long-Term Goals

11:40 am-12:00 pm Subcommittee Discussion	Global Change Mid-Cycle

Subcommittee

12:00-12:10 pm 	Public Comment

12:10-12:30 pm 	Preparation for Next Call and Face-to-Face 	Dr. Milton Russell,

	Meeting	Subcommittee Chair

	- Discuss Writing Assignments

	- Identify Additional Information Needs

12:30 pm	Adjourn

            A Federal Advisory Committee for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17105-17112]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM18-20-000]

Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standard CIP-012-
1--Cyber Security--Communications Between Control Centers

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to approve Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 (Cyber Security--
Communications between Control Centers). The North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization, submitted the proposed Reliability Standard
for Commission approval in response to a Commission directive. In
addition, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC develop certain
modifications to Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 to require protections
regarding the availability of communication links and data communicated
between bulk electric system control centers and, further, to clarify
the types of data that must be protected.

DATES: Comments are due June 24, 2019.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Vincent Le (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\
the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard CIP-012-1
(Cyber Security--Communications between Control Centers). The North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted the
proposed Reliability Standard for Commission approval in response to a
Commission directive in Order No. 822.\2\ Specifically, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed that NERC develop
modifications to require responsible entities to implement controls to
protect, at a minimum, communications links and sensitive bulk electric
system data communicated between bulk electric system Control Centers
``in a manner that is appropriately tailored to address the risks posed
to the bulk electric system by the assets being protected (i.e., high,
medium, or low impact).'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2) (2012).
    \2\ Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards, Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037, at P 53, order denying
reh'g, Order No. 822-A, 156 FERC ] 61,052 (2016).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5); Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at P
53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 is intended to augment
the currently-effective Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)
Reliability Standards to mitigate cybersecurity risks associated with
communications between bulk electric system Control Centers.\4\
Specifically, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 supports
situational awareness and reliable bulk electric system operations by
requiring responsible entities to protect the confidentiality and
integrity of Real-time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data
transmitted between

bulk electric system Control Centers.\5\ Accordingly, the Commission
proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 based on a
determination that the standard is largely responsive to the
Commission's directive in Order No. 822 and improves the cybersecurity
posture of applicable entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BES Cyber System is defined as ``[o]ne or more BES Cyber
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or
more reliability tasks for a functional entity.'' Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf. The acronym BES refers to
the bulk electric system.
    \5\ The NERC Glossary defines Real-time Assessment as ``An
evaluation of system conditions using Real-time data to assess
existing (pre-Contingency) and potential (post-Contingency)
operating conditions. The assessment shall reflect applicable inputs
including, but not limited to: Load, generation output levels, known
Protection System and Special Protection System status or
degradation, Transmission outages, generator outages, Interchange,
Facility Ratings, and identified phase angle and equipment
limitations. (Real-time Assessment may be provided through internal
systems or through third-party services.)'' NERC Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards (July 3, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. However, we are concerned that there still may be certain cyber
security risks associated with the protection of communications links
and sensitive bulk electric system data communicated between bulk
electric system Control Centers that are not adequately addressed in
NERC's proposal. First, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 does
not require protections regarding the availability of communication
links and data communicated between bulk electric system Control
Centers as directed in Order No. 822.\6\ As discussed below, at this
time, we are not persuaded by NERC's explanation that certain
currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards address the issue of
availability. Second, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 does not
adequately identify the types of data covered by its requirements, due
to, among other things, the fact that the term ``Real-time monitoring''
is not defined in the proposed Reliability Standard or the NERC
Glossary. Clarification of the types of covered data is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at P 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. To address these issues, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the
FPA, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC develop modifications
to the CIP Reliability Standards to: (1) Require protections regarding
the availability of communication links and data communicated between
bulk electric system Control Centers; and (2) clearly identify the
types of data that must be protected.

I. Background

A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    5. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Reliability Standards may be enforced
by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\7\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission
established a process to select and certify an ERO,\8\ and subsequently
certified NERC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
    \8\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 114
FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 114 FERC ] 61,328
(2006).
    \9\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Order No. 822

    6. In Order No. 822, the Commission approved seven modified CIP
Reliability Standards and directed NERC to develop additional
modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards.\10\ Specifically, the
Commission directed NERC to, among other things, develop modifications
to the CIP Reliability Standards to require responsible entities to
implement controls to protect, at a minimum, communications links and
sensitive bulk electric system data communicated between bulk electric
system Control Centers ``in a manner that is appropriately tailored to
address the risks posed to the bulk electric system by the assets being
protected (i.e., high, medium, or low impact).'' \11\ The Commission
observed that NERC, as well as other commenters in that proceeding,
``recognize that inter-Control Center communications play a critical
role in maintaining bulk electric system reliability by . . . helping
to maintain situational awareness and support reliable operations
through timely and accurate communication between Control Centers.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at PP 1, 3.
    \11\ Id. P 53.
    \12\ Id. P 54 (citing NERC Comments at 20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Commission explained that Control Centers associated with
responsible entities, including reliability coordinators, balancing
authorities, and transmission operators, must be capable of receiving
and storing a variety of bulk electric system data from their
interconnected entities in order to adequately perform their
reliability functions. The Commission, therefore, determined that
``additional measures to protect both the integrity and availability of
sensitive bulk electric system data are warranted.'' \13\ The
Commission also recognized that the data managed by responsible
entities has different attributes that may require different
information protection controls, and the Commission stated that NERC
should consider the different attributes of bulk electric system data
as it assesses appropriate information protection controls. The
Commission concluded that NERC ``should have flexibility in the manner
in which it addresses the Commission's directive.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. P 54.
    \14\ Id. P 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In Order No. 822, the Commission found to be reasonable the
following principles outlined in NERC's comments in that Commission
proceeding regarding protections for communication links and sensitive
bulk electric system data communicated between bulk electric system
Control Centers:

    (1) should not have an adverse effect on reliability, including
the recognition of instances where the introduction of latency could
have negative results; (2) should account for the risk levels of
assets and information being protected, and require protections that
are commensurate with the risks presented; and (3) should be
results-based in order to provide flexibility to account for the
range of technologies and entities involved in bulk electric system
communications.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.

In addition, the Commission cautioned that ``not all communication
network components and data pose the same risk to bulk electric system
reliability and may not require the same level of protection.'' \16\
Therefore, the Commission determined that NERC should develop controls
that reflect the risk being addressed in a reasonable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1

    9. On September 18, 2018, NERC submitted for Commission approval
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 and the associated violation
risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and
effective date.\17\ NERC states that the purpose of the proposed
Reliability Standard is to help maintain situational awareness and
reliable bulk electric system operations by protecting the
confidentiality and integrity of Real-time Assessment and Real-time
monitoring data transmitted between Control Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 is not attached to
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). The proposed Reliability
Standards are available on the Commission's eLibrary document
retrieval system in Docket No. RM18-20-000 and on the NERC website,
www.nerc.com.

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

    10. NERC explains that, although the Commission directed
modifications to Reliability Standard CIP-006-6, the standard drafting
team determined to address the Commission's communications directive by
developing a new Reliability Standard. According to NERC, the
differences in the scope and applicability between the existing
requirements of Reliability Standard CIP-006-1 and the Commission's
directive necessitated the development of a new Reliability Standard.
Specifically, NERC notes that while Reliability Standard CIP-006-6,
Requirement R1, Part 1.10 mandates protections for nonprogrammable
communication components outside a Physical Security Perimeter (PSP)
but inside the same Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) for certain
Cyber Assets, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 ``requires
protections for communications between Control Centers that transmit
certain data regardless of the location of Cyber Assets inside or
outside a PSP or ESP.'' \18\ In addition, NERC explains that unlike
Reliability Standard CIP-006-6, which applies to high and medium impact
BES Cyber Assets at Control Centers, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-
012-1 applies to assets associated with communications between certain
Control Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NERC Petition at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1
``requires Responsible Entities to develop and implement a plan to
address the risks posed by unauthorized disclosure (confidentiality)
and unauthorized modification (integrity) of Real-time Assessment and
Real-time monitoring data while being transmitted between applicable
Control Centers.'' \19\ According to NERC, the required plan must
include the following: (1) Identification of security protections; (2)
identification of where the protections are applied; and (3)
identification of the responsibilities of each entity in case a Control
Center is owned or operated by different responsible entities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 10.
    \20\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. NERC posits that, consistent with the Commission's directive in
Order No. 822, the risks posed by different types of BES Control
Centers and the associated data communicated between the Control
Centers were considered by the standard drafting team to determine its
appropriate scope and applicability.\21\ With regard to functional
entities and facilities, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-012-1 applies to balancing authorities, generator operators,
reliability coordinators, transmission operators and transmission
owners that own or operate a Control Center. NERC explains that
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 applies to all Control Centers,
with one exemption discussed below, ``regardless of the impact level of
BES Cyber Systems located at or associated with those control
centers.'' \22\ In that regard, NERC explains that the standard
drafting team determined that the sensitivity of data communicated
between Control Centers ``is not necessarily dependent on the impact
level of the BES Cyber Systems located at or associated with the
Control Centers.'' \23\ NERC states that the standard drafting team,
instead, focused on the types of Real-time data a Control Center will
communicate and whether the compromise of that data would pose a high
risk to bulk electric system reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id. at 10.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. As noted above, the types of data within the scope of proposed
Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 consists of Real-time Assessment and
Real-time monitoring data exchanged between Control Centers. NERC
states that it is critical that this information is accurate since
responsible entities operate and monitor the bulk electric system based
on this Real-time information. However, NERC points out that proposed
Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 exempts Control Centers ``that transmit[
] to another Control Center Real-time Assessment or Real-time
monitoring data pertaining only to the generation resource of
transmission station or substation co-located with the transmitting
Control Center.'' \24\ NERC explains that proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-012-1 ``excludes other data typically transferred between Control
Centers, such as Operational Planning Analysis data, that is not used
by the Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, and Transmission
Operator in Real-time.'' \25\ According to NERC, while Operational
Planning Analysis data provides information for next-day operations,
``entities adjust their operating actions during the current day based
on the data from Real-time Assessments and Real-time monitoring.'' \26\
NERC contends that if there is a risk that Operational Planning
Analysis data has been compromised, the responsible entity has the
opportunity to verify the data prior to any impact on Real-time
operations. Therefore, NERC concludes that while ``an Operational
Planning Analysis factors into how an entity operates, there is less of
a risk that an entity would act on compromised data from an Operational
Planning Analysis given it will base its operating actions on Real-time
inputs.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. at 11.
    \25\ Id. at 12.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. NERC also indicates that data at rest and oral communications
fall outside the scope of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1.
Regarding data at rest, NERC states that the standard drafting team
determined that since data at rest resides within BES Cyber Systems, it
is already protected by the controls mandated by Reliability Standards
CIP-003-6 through CIP-011-2. According to NERC, oral communications are
out of scope of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 ``because
operators have the ability to terminate the call and initiate a new one
via trusted means if they suspect a problem with, or compromise of, the
communication channel.'' \28\ NERC notes that Reliability Standard COM-
001-3 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators to have alternative interpersonal communication
capability, which could be used if there is a suspected compromise of
oral communication on one channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    15. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission
proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The proposed Reliability Standard will enhance
existing protections for bulk electric system reliability by augmenting
the currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards to mitigate
cybersecurity risks associated with communications between bulk
electric system Control Centers. Specifically, consistent with the
Commission's directive in Order No. 822, proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-012-1 supports situational awareness and reliable bulk electric
system operations by requiring responsible entities to protect the
confidentiality and integrity of Real-time Assessment and Real-time
monitoring data transmitted between bulk electric system Control
Centers.
    16. While the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard
CIP-012-1, certain cyber security risks associated with communications
between bulk electric system Control

Centers may not be fully addressed even with the implementation of the
proposed Reliability Standard. As discussed below, the Commission is
concerned that a significant cyber security risk associated with the
protection of communications links and sensitive bulk electric system
data communicated between bulk electric system Control Centers may
persist because: (1) The CIP Reliability Standards do not address the
availability of communication links and data communicated between bulk
electric system Control Centers; and (2) proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-012-1 does not adequately identify the types of data covered by its
Requirements, due to, among other things, the fact that the term
``Real-time monitoring'' is not defined.
    17. To address these gaps, the Commission seeks comment on
proposals to direct NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to
develop modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to: (1) Require
protections regarding the availability of communication links and data
communicated between bulk electric system Control Centers; and (2)
clearly identify the types of data that must be protected.
    18. Below, we discuss the following issues: (A) Availability of
bulk electric system communication links and data; and (B) scope of
bulk electric system data that must be protected.

A. Availability of Bulk Electric System Communication Links and Data
Order No. 822

    19. In Order No. 822, the Commission directed that NERC ``should
identify the scope of sensitive bulk electric system data that must be
protected and specify how the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of each type of bulk electric system data should be
protected while it is being transmitted or at rest.'' \29\ In addition,
the Commission clarified that ``the directed modification should
encompass communication links and data for intra-Control Center and
inter-Control Center communications.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at P 56.
    \30\ Id. P 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Specifically, the Commission explained that bulk electric
system Control Centers must be capable of exchanging and storing
sensitive bulk electric system data from interconnected entities in
order for responsible entities to adequately perform their reliability
functions. The Commission determined ``that additional measures to
protect both the integrity and availability of sensitive bulk electric
system data are warranted.'' \31\ The Commission explained that
protecting the availability of sensitive bulk electric system data
involves ensuring that the data required for bulk electric system
operations is available when needed. The Commission responded to
concerns that the risks posed by bulk electric system communication
networks do not justify the cost of implementing controls by explaining
that communications between Control Centers are fundamental to reliable
bulk electric system operations. The Commission, however, also
recognized that ``not all communication network components and data
pose the same risk to bulk electric system reliability and may not
require the same level of protection.'' \32\ The Commission therefore
determined that it expected NERC to develop controls that reflect the
associated risk and that can be implemented in a reasonable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. P 54 (emphasis added).
    \32\ Id. P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERC Petition

    21. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1,
Requirement R1 mandates that:

each Responsible Entity develop a plan to mitigate the risks posed
by unauthorized disclosure and unauthorized modification of Real-
time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data while being
transmitted between and applicable Control Centers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Petition at 15-16.

NERC acknowledges that Order No. 822 directed that ``NERC should
develop measures to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of sensitive [bulk electric system] data.'' \34\ NERC
states, however, that while proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1
requires protections for the confidentiality (i.e., unauthorized
disclosure) and integrity (i.e., unauthorized modification) of Real-
time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data, the availability of that
data is addressed in currently-effective Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Specifically, NERC maintains that Reliability Standard IRO-002-
5 ``requires redundant and diversely routed data exchange
infrastructure within the Reliability Coordinator's primary Control
Center in order to exchange Real-time data used in Real-time monitoring
and Real-time Assessments with Balancing Authorities, Transmission
Operators, and other entities the Reliability Coordinator deems
necessary.'' \35\ Similarly, NERC states that Reliability Standard TOP-
001-4 ``requires Balancing Authorities and Transmission Operators to
have redundant and diversely routed data exchange infrastructure to
exchange Real-time data.'' \36\ According to NERC, the ``redundancy of
data exchange infrastructure helps to ensure the availability of
critical Real-time data for Control Centers.'' \37\ Further, NERC notes
that Reliability Standards IRO-010-2 and TOP-003-3 require reliability
coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities to use
a mutually agreeable security protocol for exchange of Real-time data.
NERC contends that, by agreeing on security protocols, entities
communicate directly with the appropriate entities rather than having
to translate different protocols, which helps to ensure the
availability of Real-time data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id. at 18.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    23. We are not persuaded by the explanation in NERC's petition that
currently-effective CIP Reliability Standard requirements address the
availability directive in Order No. 822. Sensitive bulk electric system
data generally includes monitoring, operational, and system planning
data. Ensuring timely and reliable access to and use of this
information is essential to the reliable operation of the bulk electric
system. As the Commission noted in Order No. 822, bulk electric system
Control Centers ``must be capable of receiving and storing a variety of
sensitive bulk electric system data from interconnected entities.''
\38\ In particular, the Commission stated that additional protections
to address the availability of sensitive bulk electric system data are
warranted.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at P 54.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We are not persuaded that the currently-effective Reliability
Standards cited in NERC's petition require responsible entities to
protect the availability of sensitive bulk electric system data in a
manner consistent with the directives in Order No. 822. For instance,
Reliability Standards IRO-002-5 and TOP-001-4 require responsible
entities to have redundant and diversely routed data exchange
infrastructure within the Control Center environment, but do not
pertain to communications between individual Control Centers, which was
the subject of the Commission's directive in Order No. 822. Similarly,
Reliability Standards IRO-010-2 and TOP-003-3 require responsible
entities to have mutually agreeable security protocols for

exchange of Real-time data, which may have the effect of contributing
to greater availability; however, these requirements do not create an
obligation, as directed in Order No. 822, to protect the availability
of those communication capabilities and associated data by applying
appropriate security controls. Creating an obligation to protect
availability, while affording flexibility in terms of what data is
protected and how, is distinct from relying on currently-effective
Reliability Standards whose effect may be to improve availability.
    25. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric addressed this distinction during the standards
development process when they responded to the standard drafting team's
assertion that the availability directive is adequately addressed by
currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards. BPA explained that
``[w]hile the requirements of TOP-001-4 and IRO-002-5 (redundant and
diverse routing of data) can be used to achieve increased Availability,
it can also be achieved through other equally effective methods . . .
[and] [t]herefore, `availability' is not adequately addressed by TOP-
001-4 and IRO-002-5 and limits entities' options to address
availability by other methods more appropriate to their systems.'' \40\
CenterPoint stated that, ``TOP-001-4 and IRO-002-5 do not ensure
availability or communication of data between inter-entity and intra-
entity Control Centers, but only the redundancy of infrastructure
internal to the requesting entity's primary Control Center.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NERC Petition at page 273 of pdf.
    \41\ Id. at page 274 of pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Not addressing the availability of covered communication links
and data could lead to unreliable operations resulting from the
inability to communicate data between Control Centers. While NERC
contends that currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards adequately
protect the availability of sensitive bulk electric system data, there
is no obligation on responsible entities to affirmatively protect the
availability of such data. Moreover, while the Commission in Order No.
822 allowed NERC flexibility in what data is protected and how, NERC
has not addressed the directive to protect the availability of
sensitive bulk electric system data.
    27. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the
Commission proposes to direct that NERC develop modifications to the
CIP Reliability Standards to require protections regarding the
availability of communication links and data communicated between bulk
electric system Control Centers. We seek comment on this proposal.

B. Scope of Bulk Electric System Data That Must Be Protected Order No.
822

    28. In Order No. 822, the Commission stated that NERC ``should
identify the scope of sensitive bulk electric system data that must be
protected and specify how the confidentiality, integrity, and
availability of each type of bulk electric system data should be
protected while it is being transmitted or at rest.'' \42\ In addition,
the Commission clarified that ``the directed modification should
encompass communication links and data for intra-Control Center and
inter-Control Center communications.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at P 56.
    \43\ Id. P 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERC Petition

    29. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1
applies to Real-time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data due to
the critical nature of the information. NERC explains that:

Reliability Coordinators and Transmission Operators must perform
Real-time Assessments every 30 minutes to assess the conditions on
the system and determine whether there are any actual or potential
exceedances of System Operating Limits or Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limits.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ NERC Petition at 12.

In addition, NERC states that reliability coordinators, balancing
authorities, and transmission operators must perform Real-time
monitoring. NERC contends that since responsible entities ``operate and
monitor the [bulk electric system] according to this Real-time
information, it is of critical importance that it is accurate.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    30. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 requires the protection
of Real-time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data. While Real-time
Assessment is broadly defined by NERC, Real-time monitoring data is not
defined. Moreover, the proposed Reliability Standard does not
specifically indicate the types of data to be protected. We are
concerned that without further clarity, Reliability Standard CIP-012-1
may be implemented and enforced in an inconsistent manner.
    31. In the Technical Rationale document appended to NERC's
petition, NERC explained in more detail (relative to the language of
the proposed Reliability Standard's requirements) what data should be
protected under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1:

The SDT recognized the FERC reference to additional Reliability
Standards and the responsibilities to protect the applicable data in
accordance with NERC Reliability Standards TOP-003 and IRO-010. The
SDT used these references to drive the identification of sensitive
BES data and chose to base the CIP-012-1 requirements on the Real-
time data specification elements in these standards. This approach
provides consistent scoping of identified data, and does not require
each entity to devise its own list or inventory of this data. Many
entities are required to provide this data under agreements executed
with their [reliability coordinator (RC)], [balancing authority
(BA)] or [transmission operator (TOP)]. Data requiring protection in
CIP-012-1 consists of a subset of data that is identified by the RC,
BA, and TOP in the TOP-003 and IRO-010 data specification standards,
limited to Real-time Assessment data and Real-time monitoring
data.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NERC Petition, Exhibit F (Technical Rationale) at 1-2; see
also Exhibit E (Draft Implementation Guidance) at 5 (providing
similar context as to what data should be protected).

The references to Reliability Standards TOP-003 and IRO-010 in the
Technical Rationale document are not found in proposed Reliability
Standard CIP-012-1. Instead Requirement R1 of proposed Reliability
Standard CIP-012-1 only uses the terms ``Real-time Assessment and Real-
time monitoring data.'' In addition, as the Technical Rational
indicates at the outset: ``This Technical Rationale and Justification
for CIP-012-1 is not a Reliability Standard and should not be
considered mandatory and enforceable.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ NERC Petition, Exhibit F at iv; see also Exhibit E at 3
(indicating that the draft Implementation Guidance document only
provides examples in achieving compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Not clearly defining the types of data that must be protected
under the proposed Reliability Standard could result in uneven
compliance and enforcement. The term ``Real-time Assessment'' is
broadly defined in the NERC Glossary of Terms, and the term ``Real-time
monitoring'' is not defined at all. These terms, alone, may not be
understood or enforced in a consistent manner. This concern arose
during the standard drafting process in comments regarding an earlier
version of the proposed Reliability Standard, which was later
modified.\48\ Still relevant,

however, are concerns raised regarding the potential ambiguities
associated with enforcement of the scope of data that must be
protected. In particular, while NERC identifies Reliability Standards
IRO-002-5, Requirements R5 and R6, and TOP-001-4, Requirements R10 and
R11 in discussing the parameters of Real-time monitoring data, the
information outlined in the identified requirements is not included in
the language of proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 itself and,
therefore, implementation and compliance concerns may arise.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ An early version of Requirement R1 of proposed Reliability
Standard CIP-012-1 identified the scope of the data to be protected
as ``data used for Operational Planning Analysis, Real-time
Assessments, and Real-time monitoring.''
    \49\ See NERC Petition at page 505 of pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. The compliance obligations imposed under proposed Reliability
Standard CIP-012-1 should be clear in order for responsible entities to
effectively and reasonably implement the required protections. The lack
of clarity regarding the scope of Real-time monitoring data is
inconsistent with principles outlined by the Commission in Order No.
672.\50\ In particular, the lack of clarity may result in: (1) A
failure to establish a clear and unambiguous requirement regarding the
protection of Real-time monitoring data; \51\ and (2) a failure to
identify clear and objective criterion to facilitate consistent and
non-preferential enforcement since responsible entities will not have a
clear understanding of the Real-time monitoring data to be
protected.\52\ Since the controls required under Reliability Standard
CIP-012-1 are plan-based, the scope of data to be protected should be
clear and unambiguous so that responsible entities will accurately
identify vulnerabilities or risks requiring mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Order No. 672, 114 FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No.
672-A, 114 FERC ] 61,328.
    \51\ Id. PP 322, 325.
    \52\ Id. P 327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Therefore, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the
Commission proposes to direct that NERC develop modifications to the
CIP Reliability Standards to clearly identify the types of data that
must be protected. We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, we
seek comment on the specific information covered by the term ``Real-
time monitoring'' and whether a NERC Glossary definition would assist
with implementation and compliance.

III. Information Collection Statement

    35. The FERC-725B information collection requirements contained in
this notice of proposed rulemaking are subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\53\ OMB's regulations require approval of
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.\54\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject
to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The
Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of automated information techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \54\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the
changes in paperwork burden presented by the newly proposed Reliability
Standard CIP-012-1.
    37. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of December 2017, identifies
approximately 1,250 unique U.S. entities that are subject to mandatory
compliance with Reliability Standards. Of this total, we estimate that
714 entities will face an increased paperwork burden under proposed
Reliability Standard CIP-012-1. Based on these assumptions, we estimate
the following reporting burden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ We consider the filing of an application to be a
``response.''
    \56\ The loaded hourly wage figure (includes benefits) is based
on the average of the occupational categories for 2017 found on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm):
    Information Security Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-1122):
$42.84.
    Computer and Mathematical (Occupation Code: 15-0000): $44.02.
    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): $143.68.
    Computer and Information Systems Managers (Occupation Code: 11-
3021): $96.51.
    These various occupational categories' wage figures are averaged
and weighted equally as follows: ($42.84/hour + $44.02/hour +
$143.68/hour + $96.51/hour) / 4 = $81.76/hour. The resulting wage
figure is rounded to $82.00/hour for use in calculating wage figures
in the NOPR in Docket No. RM18-20-000.
    \57\ This is a one-time reporting requirement.

                          Annual Changes Proposed by the NOPR in Docket No. RM18-20-000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annual
                                  Number of       Number of     Total number    Average burden    burden hours &
                                 respondents   responses \55\   of responses    hrs. & cost per    total annual
                                               per respondent                    response \56\         cost
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) x (2) =  (4).............  (3) x (4) = 5
                                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of Documented              714               1             714  128 hrs.;         91,392
 Plan(s) (Requirement R1)                                                       $10,496.          hrs.;$7,494,14
 \57\.                                                                                4.
Document Identification of                714               1             714  40 hrs.; $3,280.  28,560 hrs.;
 Security Protection                                                                              $2,341,920.
 (Requirement R1.1) \57\.
Identification of Security                714               1             714  20 hrs.; $1,640.  14,280 hrs.;
 Protection Application (if                                                                       $1,170,960.
 owned by same Responsible
 Entity) (Requirement R1.2)
 \57\.
Identification of Security                714               1             714  160 hrs.;         14,240 hrs.;
 Protection Application (if                                                     $13,120.          $9,367,680.
 not owned by same
 Responsible Entity)
 (Requirement R1.3) \57\.
Maintaining Compliance                    714               1             714  83 hrs.; $6,806.  59,262 hrs.;
 (ongoing).                                                                                $4,859,484.
    Total (one-time).........  ..............  ..............           2,856  ................  148,472 hrs.;
                                                                                $12,174,704.
    Total (ongoing)..........  ..............  ..............             714  ................  59,262 hrs.;
                                                                                $4,859,484.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TOTAL................  ..............  ..............           3,570  ................  207,734 hrs.;
                                                                                $17,034,188.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. The one-time burden for the FERC-725B information collection
will be averaged over three years:

 148,472 hours / 3 = 49,491 hours/year over three years
 The number of one-time responses for the FERC-725B information
collection is also averaged over three years: 2,856 responses / 3 = 952
responses/year

    39. The responses and burden for one-time and ongoing burden for
Years 1-3 will total respectively as follows:

 Year 1: 1,666 responses [952 responses (one-time) + 714
responses (ongoing)]; 108,753 hours [49,491 hours (one-time) + 59,262
hours (ongoing)]
 Year 2: 1,666 responses [952 responses (one-time) + 714
responses (ongoing)]; 108,753 hours [49,491 hours (one-time) + 59,262
hours (ongoing)]
 Year 3: 1,666 responses [952 responses (one-time) + 714
responses (ongoing)]; 108,753 hours [49,491 hours (one-time) + 59,262
hours (ongoing)]

    40. Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical
Infrastructure Protection [CIP] Reliability Standards.
    Action: Proposed revision to FERC-725B information collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0248.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This notice of proposed rulemaking
proposes to approve the requested modifications to Reliability
Standards pertaining to critical infrastructure protection. As
discussed above, the Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed
Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA
because they improve upon the currently-effective suite of cyber
security Reliability Standards.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed
Reliability Standard and made a determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA.
    41. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: [email protected],
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    42. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your
comments to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. For
security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
[email protected]. Comments submitted to OMB should include
Docket Number RM18-20-000 and FERC-725B (OMB Control No. 1902-0248).

IV. Environmental Analysis

    43. 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.\58\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\59\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987)
(cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \59\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    44. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires
a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\60\ The
Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small business.\61\ The SBA revised its
size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 2014) to a
standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates (from
the prior standard based on megawatt hour sales).\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).
    \61\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \62\ 13 CFR 121.201, Subsection 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 is expected to impose
an additional burden on 714 entities \63\ (reliability coordinators,
generator operators, generator owners, interchange coordinators or
authorities, transmission operators, balancing authorities, and
transmission owners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Public utilities may fall under one of several different
categories, each with a size threshold based on the company's number
of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and
subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR, we are using a 500
employee threshold due to each affected entity falling within the
role of Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAISC Code:
221121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. Of the 714 affected entities discussed above, we estimate that
approximately 82% percent of the affected entities are small entities.
We estimate that each of the 585 small entities to whom the proposed
modifications to Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 apply will incur one-
time costs of approximately $17,051 per entity to implement the
proposed Reliability Standards, as well as the ongoing paperwork burden
reflected in the Information Collection Statement (approximately $6,806
per year per entity). We do not consider the estimated costs for these
585 small entities to be a significant economic impact. Accordingly, we
propose to certify that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-012-1 will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

VI. Comment Procedures

    47. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due June 24, 2019. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM18-20-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and address.
    48. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in

native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
    49. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    50. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    51. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    52. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in
the docket number field.
    53. 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 (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: April 18, 2019
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08236 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17818-17819]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD18-6-000]

GenH, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying
Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

    On April 12, 2018, GenH, Inc. filed a notice of intent to construct
a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower
Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed McClellan Wash
Hydro Station Project would have an installed capacity of 75 kilowatts
(kW), and would be located at the existing McClellan Wash Drop along
the Central Main Canal near Eloy, Pinal County, Arizona.
    Applicant Contact: Robert Freda, 306 Bellevue St., Boston, MA
02132, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].
    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) Five 15-kW Turgo turbine units with a
total installed capacity of 75 kW located at the McClellan Wash Drop of
the Central Main Canal; and (2) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of about
900,000 kilowatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Statutory Provision              Description       Satisfies (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by   The conduit the                      Y
 HREA.                            facility uses is a
                                  tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial
                                  consumption and not
                                  primarily for the
                                  generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended   The facility is                      Y
 by HREA.                         constructed,
                                  operated, or
                                  maintained for the
                                  generation of
                                  electric power and
                                  uses for such
                                  generation only the
                                  hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended  The facility has an                  Y
 by HREA.                         installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  5 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as         On or before August 9,               Y
 amended by HREA.                 2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing
                                  requirements of Part
                                  I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed addition of the
hydroelectric project along the existing irrigation canal will not
alter its primary purpose. Therefore, based upon the above information
and criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the
proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower
facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from
licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A
CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY or MOTION TO INTERVENE, as applicable; (2)
state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number
of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name,
address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of
the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting Commission
staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the
qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD18-6) in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-
866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For TTY, call (202)
502-8659.

    Dated: April 17, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08475 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P