[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66220-66229]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM11-20-000]

Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding Plans
Reliability Standards

October 20, 2011.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve Reliability
Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-
003-2 (Load Shedding Plans), developed and submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), the Electric Reliability Organization certified by the
Commission. The proposed Reliability Standards establish design and
documentation requirements for automatic underfrequency load shedding
programs that arrest declining frequency and assist recovery of
frequency following system events leading to frequency degradation. The
Commission also proposes to approve the related Violation Risk Factors
and Violation Severity Levels, implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by NERC.

DATES: Comments are due December 27, 2011.

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:
    Stephanie Schmidt (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-6568<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standards PRC-006-1

(Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding
Plans). The proposed Reliability Standards were developed and submitted
for approval to the Commission by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission certified as the
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards.\2\ The proposed Reliability
Standards establish design and documentation requirements for automatic
underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) programs, which are meant to arrest
declining frequency and assist recovery of frequency following
underfrequency events and provide last resort system preservation
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission proposes to approve the related Violation Risk
Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs), implementation
plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. The Commission also proposes
to approve the retirement of the currently effective Reliability
Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1, and the NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.
    3. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and other interested
persons on specific issues concerning the proposed Reliability
Standards.

I. Background

A. Underfrequency Load Shedding

    4. An interconnected electric power system must balance load and
generation in order to maintain frequency within a reliable range.\3\
The balance between generation and load within an interconnected
electric power system is shown in the frequency of the system.\4\
Underfrequency protection schemes are drastic measures employed if the
system frequency falls below a specified value.\5\ The Blackout Report
provides the following explanation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Power Systems
Dynamics Tutorial, Chapter 4 at page 4-78 (2009), available at
http://www.epri.com (EPRI Tutorial).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.

    [A]utomatic under-frequency load-shedding (UFLS) is designed for
use in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between
generation and load after an electrical island has been formed,
dropping enough load to allow frequency to stabilize within the
island. All synchronous generators in North America are designed to
operate at 60 cycles per second (Hertz) and frequency reflects how
well load and generation are balanced--if there is more load than
generation at any moment, frequency drops below 60 Hz, and it rises
above that level if there is more generation than load. By dropping
load to match available generation within the island, UFLS is a
safety net that helps to prevent the complete blackout of the
island, which allows faster system restoration afterward. UFLS is
not effective if there is electrical instability or voltage collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
within the island.\6\

    \6\ U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on
the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes
and Recommendations at 92-93 (2004) (Blackout Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. UFLS programs are designed for each defined area or system, and
they are commonly implemented with devices installed on the
distribution side of the power system.\7\ Factors considered in
developing a UFLS program include: (1) Underfrequency set point, (2)
minimum amount of load to shed, and (3) what load and at what locations
to shed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ UFLS programs are designed to maintain a balance between
resources and demand in a defined area (e.g., Interconnection,
Regional Entity area, or planning coordinator area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Underfrequency Set Point
    6. The underfrequency set point is the frequency at which a
specified load will disconnect from the system in a UFLS program.\8\
Separately, generators have their own underfrequency set points, which
will disconnect them from the system if the frequency drops to a
certain value, thus protecting them from damage.\9\ Underfrequency set
points for load shedding are set above the frequencies at which
generators disconnect.\10\ This is done to prevent losing additional
resources that would exacerbate the imbalance between resources and
demand, resulting in further frequency declines. UFLS programs initiate
at a specified point to shed the first load block, and if necessary
additional load blocks at other lower set points, to arrest system
frequency decline prior to the loss of additional resources.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In Order No. 693-A, the Commission directed NERC to collect
the frequency and magnitude of load in UFLS systems. Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ]
61,053, at P 145 (2007). NERC submitted a response to this request
on February 1, 2008 that included the underfrequency set points and
magnitude of load shed in each Regional Entity. NERC, Response to
FERC Supplemental Request for Information on the Status of
Underfrequency Load Shedding, Docket No. RM06-16-000 (filed Feb. 1,
2008).
    \9\ EPRI Tutorial at page 4-81.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at P 4-78, 4-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Once a frequency threshold \12\ is identified, the balance of
resources and demand to be maintained to prevent the system from
reaching that frequency threshold is determined. UFLS programs use
validated models of the power system, which consist of mathematical
representations of static (e.g., transformers and transmission lines)
and dynamic (e.g., generators and motor loads) components of the power
system aggregated to simulate how the system performs during system
operations.\13\ Models are validated, typically, by comparing actual
system operations against simulated system operations to ensure the
simulated system operations are within a defined and acceptable margin
of tolerance relative to actual system operations. Inaccurate power
system models may result in a UFLS program that does not perform as
desired, thus undermining the reliability objective of UFLS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A frequency threshold is a pre-determined frequency that
UFLS programs are designed to avoid reaching, as the system may
become unstable at this frequency.
    \13\ See, e.g., PowerTech Labs Inc., 2010 Evaluation and
Assessment of Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Under-Frequency Load
Shedding Scheme, available at http://www.spp.org/publications/SPP-
2010-UFLS-Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. A UFLS program is designed to shed sufficient load to arrest
system frequency decline without shedding too much load such that
frequency increases above 60 Hz. If a UFLS program is not effective,
either because of invalid power system models or miscoordination of the
UFLS program with entities inside and outside of the intended island,
it may not achieve the reliability objective of preventing cascading
outages. This, in turn, could further undermine reliability and
recovery of the Bulk-Power System during a system emergency.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, if not enough load is shed to arrest frequency
decline, additional resources may disconnect from the
Interconnection to prevent damage to generators, and thus system
frequency will continue to collapse. Conversely, if too much load is
shed, the system frequency could exceed 60 Hz also causing resources
to disconnect from the Interconnection to prevent damage to
generators. EPRI Tutorial at page 4-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Minimum Amount of Load to Shed
    9. The amount of load to disconnect is the amount of load shed at
each underfrequency set point, typically expressed in megawatts or
percent of system peak load or both.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPRI Tutorial at page 4-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What Load to Shed
    10. In addition to determining the amount of load to disconnect
based on validated power system models, a UFLS program identifies what
loads to shed

and their locations. Therefore, in deciding what specific loads to
shed, consideration is given to whether the load is critical (e.g.,
hospitals, police stations, or fire stations). These loads would
typically not be included in a UFLS program.

B. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    11. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are
subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    12. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established
a process to select and certify an ERO \17\ and, subsequently,
certified NERC as the ERO.\18\ On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued
Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by
NERC, including Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-
003-1.\19\ The Commission neither approved nor remanded NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 in Order No. 693.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \18\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom., Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    \19\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 603.
    \20\ Id. P 1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NERC-Approved Reliability Standard

1. PRC-006-0
    13. NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 addresses the
development of a regional UFLS program that is used as a last resort to
preserve islanding operation following a major system event on the
Bulk-Power System that could otherwise cause the island system
frequency to collapse. PRC-006-0 requires regional reliability
organizations to develop, coordinate, document and assess UFLS program
design and effectiveness at least every five years. In Order No. 693,
the Commission determined neither to approve nor remand this ``fill-in-
the-blank'' Reliability Standard because the regional procedures had
not been submitted, and the Commission held that it would not propose
to approve or remand PRC-006-0 until the ERO submitted the additional
information.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. P 1477, 1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Currently Effective Reliability Standards

1. PRC-007-0
    14. Reliability Standard PRC-007-0 requires transmission owners,
transmission operators, load serving entities (LSEs) and distribution
providers to provide, and annually update, their underfrequency data to
facilitate the regional reliability organization's maintenance of the
UFLS program database.
2. PRC-009-0
    15. Reliability Standard PRC-009-0 requires that the performance of
a UFLS system be analyzed and documented following an underfrequency
event by requiring the transmission owner, transmission operator, LSE
and distribution provider to document the deployment of their UFLS
systems in accordance with the regional reliability organization's
program.
3. EOP-003-1
    16. Reliability Standard EOP-003-1 addresses load shedding plans
and requires that balancing authorities and transmission operators
operating with insufficient transmission and/or generation capacity
have the capability and authority to shed load rather than risk a
failure of the system. It includes requirements to establish plans for
automatic load shedding for underfrequency or undervoltage, manual load
shedding to respond to real-time emergencies, and communication with
other balancing authorities and transmission operators.

II. Proposed Reliability Standards

    17. On March 31, 2011, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission
approval of proposed Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 and
requesting the concurrent retirement of the currently effective
Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1 and NERC-
approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.\22\ NERC requests an effective
date for PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 of one year following the first day of
the first calendar quarter after applicable regulatory approvals with
respect to all Requirements of the proposed Reliability Standards
except Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1. With
respect to Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1, NERC
requests an effective date of one year following the receipt of
generation data as would be required in draft Reliability Standard PRC-
024-1 \23\ but no sooner than one year following the first day of the
first calendar quarter after applicable regulatory approvals of PRC-
006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NERC Petition at 1. The proposed new Reliability Standards
are not attached to the NOPR. They are, however, available on the
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM11-
20-000 and are available on the ERO's Web site, http://www.nerc.com.
Reliability Standards approved by the Commission are not codified in
the CFR.
    \23\ PRC-024-1 addresses ``Generator Performance During
Frequency and Voltage Excursions'' and is currently being developed
in the NERC standard drafting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. PRC-006-1

    18. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 would apply to planning
coordinators, ``UFLS entities,'' \24\ and transmission owners that
``own Elements identified in the UFLS program established by the
Planning Coordinators.'' NERC states that the primary purpose of the
proposed Reliability Standard is the establishment of design and
document requirements for UFLS programs that arrest declining frequency
and assist recovery of frequency following system events leading to
frequency degradation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ PRC-006-1 defines ``UFLS entities'' as: ``All entities that
are responsible for the ownership, operation, or control of UFLS
equipment as required by the UFLS program established by the
Planning Coordinators.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. NERC states that PRC-006-1 satisfies the Commission's criteria,
set forth in Order No. 672, for determining whether a proposed
Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential and in the public interest.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 at P 323-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. According to NERC, PRC-006-1 is designed to achieve a specific
reliability goal by establishing design and documentation requirements
for automatic UFLS programs to arrest declining frequency, assist
recovery of frequency following underfrequency events and provide last
resort system preservation measures. NERC contends that PRC-006-1
contains a technically sound method to achieve its reliability goal by
establishing a framework for developing, designing, assessing and
coordinating UFLS programs, and that PRC-006-1 is clear and unambiguous
regarding what is required and who is required to comply with the
Reliability Standard.
    21. NERC states that PRC-006-1 does not reflect ``best practices''
without regard to implementation cost.\26\ NERC contends that it
achieves a specific reliability goal of establishing design

and documentation requirements for automatic UFLS programs to arrest
declining frequency and assist recovery following underfrequency
events, and that UFLS programs provide last resort system preservation
measures by shedding load during system disturbances that result in
substantial imbalance between load and generation. NERC also maintains
that PRC-006-1 does not aim at a ``lowest common denominator'' but
instead establishes common performance characteristics that all UFLS
programs must meet to effectively protect Bulk-Power System
reliability.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NERC Petition at 24.
    \27\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. NERC states that PRC-006-1 does not include any differentiation
in requirements based on entity size, though it provides the
opportunity for planning coordinators to consider input from smaller
entities when developing the UFLS program. NERC further explains that
PRC-006-1 would apply throughout North America, with variances for
entities within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and
the Quebec Interconnections.
    23. As proposed by NERC, PRC-006-1 has 14 requirements and 19 sub-
requirements, summarized as follows:
    Requirement R1: Requires each planning coordinator to develop and
document criteria to identify portions of the bulk electric system that
may form islands.
    Requirement R2: Requires each planning coordinator to identify the
islands to serve as a basis for designing its UFLS program. Sub-
Requirements 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 serve as a checklist of items that the
entity must consider when identifying islands.
    Requirement R3: Requires each planning coordinator to develop a
UFLS program, including notification of and a schedule for
implementation by the UFLS entities within its area, that meets the
specific performance characteristics set forth in sub-Requirements 3.1
through 3.3 in simulations of underfrequency conditions resulting from
an imbalance of up to 25 percent within the identified island.
    Requirement R4: Requires each planning coordinator to conduct and
document a UFLS design assessment at least once every five years that
determines through dynamic simulation whether the UFLS program design
meets the performance characteristics in Requirement R3 for each island
identified in Requirement R2, with sub-Requirements 4.1 through 4.7
specifying items that the simulation must model.
    Requirement R5: Requires each planning coordinator to coordinate
its UFLS design with all other planning coordinators whose areas or
portions of whose areas are also part of the same identified island
through specific actions identified in Requirement R5.
    Requirement R6: Requires each planning coordinator to maintain a
UFLS database containing data necessary to model its UFLS program for
use in event analyses and assessments of the UFLS program at least once
each calendar year, with no more than 15 months between maintenance
activities.
    Requirement R7: Requires each planning coordinator to provide its
UFLS database to other planning coordinators within its Interconnection
within 30 calendar days of request.
    Requirement R8: Requires each UFLS entity to provide data to its
planning coordinator(s) according to the format and schedule specified
by the planning coordinator(s) to support maintenance of the UFLS
database.
    Requirement R9: Requires each UFLS entity to provide automatic
tripping of load in accordance with the UFLS program design and
schedule for application determined by its planning coordinator(s) in
each planning coordinator area in which it owns assets.
    Requirement R10: Requires each transmission owner to provide
automatic switching of its existing capacitor banks, transmission
lines, and reactors to control overvoltage as a result of
underfrequency load shedding if required by the UFLS program and
schedule for application determined by the planning coordinator(s) in
each planning coordinator area in which the transmission owner owns
transmission.
    Requirement R11: Requires each planning coordinator, in whose area
a bulk electric system islanding event results in system frequency
excursions below the initializing set points of the UFLS program, to
conduct and document an assessment of the event within one year of
event actuation that evaluates the performance of the UFLS equipment
(sub-Requirement 11.1), and the effectiveness of the UFLS program (sub-
Requirement 11.2).
    Requirement R12: Requires each planning coordinator, in whose
islanding event assessment (Requirement R11) UFLS program deficiencies
are identified, to conduct and document a UFLS design assessment to
consider the identified deficiencies within two years of event
actuation.
    Requirement R13: Requires each planning coordinator, in whose area
a bulk electric system islanding event occurred that also included the
area(s) or portions of area(s) of other planning coordinator(s) in the
same islanding event and that resulted in system frequency excursions
below the initializing set points of the UFLS program, to coordinate
its event assessment (in accordance with Requirement R11) with all
other planning coordinators whose areas or portions of whose areas were
also included in the same islanding event by either: (i) Conducting a
joint event assessment per Requirement R11 among the planning
coordinators whose areas or portions of whose areas were included in
the same islanding event; or (ii) conducting an independent event
assessment per Requirement R11 that reaches conclusions and
recommendations consistent with those of the event assessments of the
other planning coordinators whose areas or portions of whose areas were
included in the same islanding event; or (iii) conducting an
independent event assessment per Requirement R11 and where the
assessment fails to reach conclusions and recommendations consistent
with those of the event assessments of the other planning coordinators
whose areas or portions of whose areas were included in the same
islanding event, identifying differences in the assessments that likely
resulted in the differences in the conclusions and recommendations and
report these differences to the other planning coordinators whose areas
or portions of whose areas were included in the same islanding event
and to the ERO.
    Requirement R14: Requires the planning coordinator to respond to
written comments submitted by UFLS entities and transmission owners
within its planning coordinator area following a comment period and
before finalizing its UFLS program, indicating in the written response
to comments whether changes will be made or reasons why changes will
not be made to the UFLS program, including a schedule for
implementation (sub-Requirement 14.1) and the UFLS design assessment
(sub-Requirement 14.2).

B. EOP-003-2

    24. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 would apply to
balancing authorities and transmission operators. NERC states that EOP-
003-2 makes minimal changes to EOP-003-1 by removing references to
UFLS, which NERC describes as redundant in light of proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, and instead focuses proposed
Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 on undervoltage conditions.

III. Discussion

    25. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission
proposes to approve Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-1 as
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The Commission believes that the UFLS program
addressed in the proposed Reliability Standards is important to
arresting declining frequency and assisting recovery of frequency
following system events that lead to system instability, which can
result in a blackout. The Commission finds that the proposed
Reliability Standards are necessary for reliability because UFLS is
used in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between generation
and load after an electrical island has been formed, dropping enough
load to allow frequency to stabilize within the island. Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1, in conjunction with the conforming changes to EOP-
003-2, provides last resort Bulk-Power System preservation measures by
establishing the first national Reliability Standard of common
performance characteristics that all UFLS programs must meet. In
addition, the Commission proposes to approve the related VRFs and VSLs,
implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. Finally, the
Commission proposes to approve the retirement of the currently
effective Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1,
and the NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.
    26. The Commission addresses or seeks comments from the ERO and
other interested persons on aspects of the proposed Reliability
Standards. Specifically, we address or seek comments on the following
issues: (A) Impact of resources not connected to the bulk electric
system; (B) validation of power system models used to simulate ULFS
programs; (C) scope of UFLS events assessments; (D) impact of generator
owner trip settings outside of the UFLS program; (E) UFLS program
coordination with other protection systems; (F) identification of
island boundaries in UFLS programs; (G) automatic load shedding in PRC-
006-1 and manual load shedding in EOP-003-2; (H) elimination of
balancing authority responsibilities in EOP-003-2; and (I) the ``Lower
VSL'' for Requirement R8 and the ``Medium'' VRF for Requirement R5 of
PRC-006-1. These issues also apply to the corresponding Requirements in
the requested regional variance for WECC in PRC-006-1.

A. Impact of Resources Not Connected to Bulk Electric System Facilities

    27. As described above, UFLS programs are designed to maintain
balance between resources and load in a defined area (e.g., an
Interconnection, Regional Entity area, or planning coordinator area).
When a resource is lost, load exceeds supply causing frequency to
decrease below its scheduled value (e.g., 60 Hz in the United States).
Conversely, a loss of load or excess supply can result in higher
frequencies than scheduled, resulting in an overfrequency condition. As
a last resort, UFLS programs are initiated during extreme
underfrequency conditions to reestablish balance by shedding load at
predetermined frequencies and times to prevent system-wide blackouts.
    28. Requirement R2 of PRC-006-1 requires planning coordinators to
identify islands to serve as a basis for designing UFLS programs.
Requirement R3 addresses performance characteristics for UFLS programs.
Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator to conduct and
document the assessment of its UFLS design and determine if the UFLS
program meets the performance characteristics in Requirement R3 for
each island identified in Requirement R2.
    29. The simulations outlined in Requirement R4 all concern
individual generating units greater than 20 MVA gross nameplate rating
or generating plants/facilities greater then 75 MVA ``connected to the
bulk electric system.'' However, some generation that meets the 20 MVA
and 75 MVA criteria is not connected to bulk electric system
facilities. Accordingly, those resources not connected to bulk electric
system facilities would not be modeled pursuant to Requirement R4.
However, a resource not connected to the bulk electric system may serve
load designed to be shed in a UFLS program. The Commission is concerned
that failure to account for resources not connected to the bulk
electric system in a planning coordinator's UFLS program could result
in the planning coordinator being unaware of how such resources respond
to underfrequency conditions. If the planning coordinator is unaware of
how these facilities have responded, it may plan to shed more load than
is required for an area's frequency to return to normal. This could
lead to an unintended overfrequency condition if the plan is carried
out in the operating timeframe. These conditions, in turn, could lead
the plan to violate the performance characteristics specified in
Requirement R3.
    30. The performance characteristics identified in Requirement R3
provide acceptable parameters for developing UFLS programs that are
designed to restore balance between resources and load. However, the
Commission is concerned that generation resources or facilities that
are not connected to the bulk electric system may not be considered
during the development of UFLS programs.
    31. The Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other interested
persons as to whether and how all resources required for the reliable
operation of the bulk electric system, including resources not
connected to bulk electric system facilities, are considered in the
development of UFLS programs under Requirements R3 and R4.

B. Validation of Power System Models

    32. Power systems consist of static components (e.g., transformers
and transmission lines) and dynamic components (e.g., generators and
motor loads). Mathematical representations of these components are
aggregated to create an area's power system model. Power system
planners \28\ and system operators base decisions on simulations, both
static and dynamic, using area power system models to meet requirements
in both Commission-approved planning and operational Reliability
Standards.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Power system planners may include functional entities such
as transmission planners and planning coordinators.
    \29\ See, e.g., Reliability Standards MOD-010-0, MOD-012-0 and
TOP-002-2a, Requirement R19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC-006-1 require applicable
entities to use dynamic simulations to design and assess the
effectiveness of UFLS programs. As previously discussed, UFLS programs
are designed to provide last resort system preservation measures by:
(1) Arresting declining frequency; and (2) assisting recovery of
frequency following underfrequency events. Dynamic simulations that do
not accurately represent the power system can result in an UFLS program
that is ineffective.
    34. The Commission believes that the UFLS program design
requirements established in Requirement R2 and the required assessments
established in Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC-006-1 are generally
acceptable and include improvements above the current Reliability
Standards. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the language in
the proposed Requirements is appropriate.

C. UFLS Event Assessments

1. Assessments in the Absence of Island Formation
    35. Requirement R11 of PRC-006-1 requires planning coordinators to
conduct assessments after a ``BES islanding event results in system
frequency excursion below the initializing set points of the UFLS
program.'' The Commission is concerned whether the phrase ``BES
islanding event'' could be interpreted to mean that a planning
coordinator only has to assess an event if it meets both of the
following requirements: (1) System frequency excursions fall below the
initializing set point for UFLS; and (2) bulk electric system islands
form within the Interconnection. If the frequency falls below the
initializing UFLS set point but islands do not form (e.g., because the
event was not severe enough to isolate portions of the Interconnection,
or UFLS or other protection systems failed to operate properly to form
islands), an assessment of the performance of the UFLS program for this
event is still useful because it can determine if the UFLS program
operated as expected.
    36. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO regarding what
actions must planning coordinators take under Requirement R11 if an
event results in system frequency excursions falling below this
initializing set point for UFLS but without the formation of a bulk
electric system island.
2. Coordination of Assessments and Results
    37. Requirements R5 and R13 of PRC-006-1 require planning
coordinators that share identified islands to coordinate UFLS program
design and event assessment. The options for coordinating designs of
UFLS programs in Requirement R5 include: (1) Developing a common
program; (2) conducting a joint UFLS design assessment among the
planning coordinators whose area or portions of whose areas are part of
the same identified island; or (3) conducting an independent design
assessment and, in the event the UFLS design assessment fails to meet
Requirement R3, identify modifications to the UFLS program(s) to meet
Requirement R3 and report these modifications as recommendations to the
other planning coordinators.
    38. The options for coordinating event assessments in Requirement
R13 include: (1) Conducting a joint event assessment per Requirement
R11 among planning coordinators whose areas were affected; (2)
conducting an independent event assessment per Requirement R11 that
reaches conclusions and recommendations consistent with other planning
coordinators whose areas were affected; or (3) conducting an
independent event assessment per Requirement R11 and where the
assessment fails to reach conclusions and recommendations consistent
with those of the other planning coordinators whose areas were affected
by the same islanding event, identify differences in the assessments
and report these differences to the other affected planning
coordinators. The Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons as to whether the differences should be subsequently
reported to the reliability coordinator for resolution in the event
that the process does not resolve differences in the assessments.
    39. The Commission believes that Requirements R5 and R13 provide
flexibility in coordinating UFLS design programs and event assessments
among planning coordinators whose areas fall within the same island or
whose areas are affected by the same event. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that the language in the proposed Requirements is appropriate.
3. Assessment Timeline for Completion
    40. Requirement R11 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires a
planning coordinator to perform an island event assessment within one
year of an event. If the planning coordinator identifies program
deficiencies, Requirement R12 requires the planning coordinator to
conduct and document UFLS design assessments, which are meant to
consider the deficiencies, within two years of an event. The Commission
is concerned that this time frame may be too long since it appears that
island event assessments and consideration of deficiencies could
reasonably be conducted in a much shorter time frame. Under NERC's
proposal, deficiencies could remain within a UFLS program for two years
from an event exposing the Bulk-Power System to instability,
uncontrolled separation and cascading outages should a frequency event
occur that the UFLS program mishandles. NERC provided no explanation of
its basis for the proposed two-year time frame.
    41. The Commission asks the ERO and other interested persons what
the basis is for proposing a two-year time frame. In addition, the
Commission seeks clarification from the ERO as to how soon after event
actuation would an entity need to implement corrections in response to
any deficiencies identified in the event assessment under Requirement
R11.

D. Generator Owner Trip Settings Outside of the UFLS Program

    42. Requirements 4.1 through 4.7 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
are intended to capture the effects of generators that trip prior to
UFLS initiation. As previously discussed, a generator trip normally
creates an imbalance between resources and load causing system
frequency to decline. Some generators may need to disconnect from the
system prior to reaching underfrequency set points to protect their
components from permanent damage. If this loss occurs during a system
event, the generator can no longer provide a response to assist in
arresting frequency decline. This resource loss also counteracts the
response provided by other resources to arrest frequency decline,
increasing the likelihood of instability, uncontrolled separation, and
cascading outages.
    43. We agree that planning coordinators should consider generators
that trip prior to underfrequency set points when developing their UFLS
programs. The Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons on how generation losses outside of the UFLS set
points (i.e., generators having trip settings prior to the UFLS
underfrequency set points) should be accounted for in UFLS programs
(e.g., generator owners who trip outside of the UFLS set points could
procure load to shed to account for the loss in generation).

E. UFLS Program Coordination With Other Protection Systems

    44. Recommendation 21C of the Blackout Report addresses the
coordination of protection systems.\30\ The recommendation states that
NERC shall ``determine the goals and principles needed to establish an
integrated approach to relay protection for generators and transmission
lines and the use of underfrequency and undervoltage load shedding
(UFLS and UVLS) programs. An integrated approach is needed to ensure
that at the local and regional levels, these interactive components
provide an appropriate balance of risks and benefits in terms of
protecting specific assets and facilitating overall grid survival.''
\31\ Accordingly, an integrated approach requires coordination of all
types of protection systems (e.g., UFLS, UVLS), internally and
externally to an entity's

area, to be responsive to the Blackout Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Blackout Report at 159.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. While PRC-006-1 requires coordination of UFLS programs among
planning coordinators in Requirements R5, R7, and R13, it does not
appear to capture the same level of coordination with other protection
systems as in Requirement R1.2.8 of PRC-006-0.\32\ The Commission seeks
comments from NERC and other interested persons on whether and how
coordination with other protection systems is or is not achieved under
the new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Requirement 1.2.8 of PRC-006-0 encompasses ``[a]ny other
schemes that are part of or impact the UFLS program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Identification of Island Boundaries

    46. Requirement R1 of PRC-006-1 directs planning coordinators to
develop criteria to select areas that may form islands based on
historical events and system studies. Historical events and system
studies provide planning coordinators with the data necessary to
determine where islands will occur based on the physics of the system.
Requirement R2.3 clarifies that islands identified in Requirement R1,
which span two or more Regional Entity areas, should be broken up such
that each Regional Entity area forms an island. Requirement R2.3 allows
planning coordinators to ``adjust the island boundaries to differ from
the Regional Entity area boundaries by mutual consent where necessary''
to preserve contiguous island boundaries that better reflect
simulations. The Commission agrees that identifying island boundaries
based on where they are likely to occur due to system characteristics,
as opposed to maintaining rigid Regional Entity area boundaries, should
result in more effective UFLS programs. Accordingly, the Commission
encourages cooperation among entities to create UFLS programs that set
island boundaries based on where separations are expected to occur
during an underfrequency event.
    47. In its petition, NERC states that the Requirements allow
planning coordinators to ``select islands including interconnected
portions of the bulk electric system in adjacent Planning Coordinator
areas and Regional Entity areas, without the need for coordinating this
selection with Planning Coordinators in neighboring regions.'' \33\
Requirement R2.3 of PRC-006-1, however, requires ``mutual consent'' to
adjust island boundaries from Regional Entity boundaries. The
Commission seeks clarification from the ERO concerning the required
degree of cooperation and/or ``mutual consent'' between planning
coordinators under the proposed Reliability Standard in order for
island boundaries to be set so that, while deviating from Regional
Entity boundaries, they better approximate actual island separation
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NERC Petition at 75-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Automatic Load Shedding and Manual Load Shedding

    48. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires automatically
shedding predetermined amounts of load if frequency declines to the
UFLS set point in order to rebalance resources and demand and prevent
frequency decline that might cause instability, uncontrolled
separation, or cascading outages. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-
003-2 requires manual load shedding plans, which may be employed in
addition to the automatic load shedding in the UFLS program, or to
mitigate other reliability issues. If load allocated to be shed
automatically is also planned for manual load shedding, then that load
resource would be double-counted. Once load is disconnected from the
system, either automatically or manually, it cannot be used again to
arrest frequency decline. In the event that a load resource is double-
counted and removed during automatic UFLS, the manual load shedding
cannot be completed if called upon. Even if additional load is located
and shed to compensate for this missing load, the system would be put
into an un-studied state and could have unpredicted, negative
responses. Accordingly, resources allocated to each type of load
shedding (i.e., automatic and manual) should not overlap.
    49. There are no requirements in PRC-006-1 to coordinate automatic
load shedding by UFLS and manual load shedding under EOP-003-2. The
Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other interested persons on
how the coordination of automatic and manual load shedding is
considered in light of the fact that the proposed Reliability Standards
do not explicitly require coordination.

H. Elimination of Requirements for Balancing Authorities in EOP-003-2

    50. Requirements R2, R4, and R7 of the currently-effective
Reliability Standard EOP-003-1 apply to transmission operators and
balancing authorities. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 proposes
to eliminate balancing authorities from Requirements R2, R4, and R7.
    51. Under the proposed modification, balancing authorities would no
longer: (i) Establish plans for automatic load shedding for
underfrequency or undervoltage conditions (Requirement R2); (ii)
consider factors (including frequency, rate of frequency decay, voltage
level, rate of voltage decay, or power flow levels) in designing an
automatic undervoltage load shedding scheme (Requirement R4); and (iii)
coordinate automatic load shedding throughout its area with
underfrequency isolation of generating units, tripping of shunt
capacitors, and other automatic actions that will occur under abnormal
frequency, voltage, or power flow conditions (Requirement R7). In its
petition, NERC explains that balancing authorities were deleted from
Requirements R2 and R4 ``because the frequency related aspects of these
requirements were removed, leaving only consideration of automatic
undervoltage load shedding in these two requirements.'' \34\ NERC's
petition, however, does not explain why balancing authorities were
removed from Requirement R7. Moreover, given that balancing authorities
would no longer be subject to Requirements R2, R4, and R7 of EOP-003-2
and are not listed as applicable entities in PRC-006-1, the proposed
Reliability Standards do not preserve these existing balancing
authority responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ NERC Petition at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO as to why these
existing balancing authority responsibilities were not incorporated
into Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 or EOP-003-2. The Commission also
seeks comments from the ERO and other interested persons as to why
balancing authorities should not be informed of UFLS program plans that
directly impact balancing authority functions.

I. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

    53. NERC states that each primary requirement in PRC-006-1 and EOP-
003-2 is assigned a Violation Risk Factor (VRF) and Violation Severity
Level (VSL) and that these elements support the determination of an
initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of
requirements in Commission-approved Reliability Standards, as defined
in the ERO Sanction Guidelines.
    54. The Commission proposes to approve the VRFs and VSLs in PRC-
006-1 and EOP-003-2. However, the Commission seeks comments from the
ERO and other interested persons regarding one proposed VSL and one
proposed VRF for PRC-006-1.
    55. The ``Lower VSL'' assignment for Requirement R8 in PRC-006-1
applies

when a UFLS entity fails to provide data to its planning coordinator
for 5 to 10 calendar days following the schedule specified by the
planning coordinator. Requirement R8 of PRC-006-1 does not include a 5-
day grace period for providing data to planning coordinators.
Accordingly, the subject VSL assignment may be inconsistent with the
Commission's VSL Guideline 3. The guideline states that a VSL ``should
not appear to redefine or undermine the requirement.'' \35\ The five-
day grace period implicit in the proposed VSL appears to be
inconsistent with this guideline. In addition, the proposed VSL creates
a compliance issue. Specifically, it is unclear where a UFLS entity
falls in the VRF and VSL matrices if it fails to provide data to its
planning coordinator within 1 to 5 days of its scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ]
61,284, at P 32 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. The VRF for Requirement R5, which requires planning
coordinators to coordinate their UFLS program design with other
planning coordinators whose area is in part of the same identified
island, is proposed as ``Medium.'' NERC states that Requirement R5 is
``not related to similar reliability goals in other standards.'' \36\
However, coordination of load shedding plans is required in a similar
manner in Requirement R3 of currently effective Reliability Standard
EOP-003-1,\37\ which includes a VRF of ``High.'' The lack of
coordination of UFLS programs among planning coordinators within the
same identified island could lead to ineffective UFLS operations and
further cascading outages within the island when UFLS is activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ NERC Petition at 46.
    \37\ Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 includes the same
VRF assignment of ``High'' for Requirement R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Guideline 3 of the Commission's VRF Guidelines states that
``[a]bsent justification to the contrary, the Commission expects the
assignment of Violation Risk Factors corresponding to Requirements that
address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.'' \38\ The Commission seeks clarification
from the ERO why coordination of load shedding plans is a ``High'' VRF
for transmission operators and balancing authorities in EOP-003-2 but
NERC proposes a ``Medium'' VRF for planning coordinators in, PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, at P 25 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Implementation Plan and Effective Date

    58. NERC requests an effective date for PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 of
one year following the first day of the first calendar quarter after
applicable regulatory approvals with respect to all Requirements of the
proposed Reliability Standards except Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of
Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1. With respect to Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of
Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1, NERC requests an effective date of one
year following the receipt of generation data as required in
Reliability Standard PRC-024-1,\39\ but no sooner than one year
following the first day of the first calendar quarter after applicable
regulatory approvals of PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ PRC-024-1 addresses ``Generator Performance During
Frequency and Voltage Excursions'' and is currently being developed
in the NERC standard drafting process under Project 2007-09
(Generator Verification), which is one of NERC's priority projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. NERC contends that the proposed implementation plan is not
excessively long and allows sufficient time for entities to transition
and install the necessary processes to become compliant. NERC maintains
that the one year phase-in for compliance provides planning
coordinators sufficient time: (1) To develop, modify, or validate (to
determine that an existing program meets required performance
characteristics) existing UFLS programs; and (2) to establish a
schedule for implementation, or validate a schedule for completion of
program revisions already in progress. Moreover, NERC states that
transmission owners and distribution providers will comply with the
schedule determined by planning coordinators but no sooner than the
effective date of the standard.
    60. The Commission proposes to accept the implementation plan and
effective date proposed by the ERO for PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2.
However, the Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons about any potential reliability gaps that may occur
during the development and implementation of PRC-024-1, such as how the
planning coordinators will adequately determine and apply UFLS
simulations and plans in the absence of generator trip settings.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    61. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\40\ Upon approval of a collection(s)
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the
use of automated information techniques.
    63. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve
Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2, which would replace
currently effective Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, EOP-
003-1 and NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.\41\ As noted
previously, Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 was never approved by the
Commission, and therefore has never been mandatory and enforceable. On
the other hand, Reliability Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0 were
approved by the Commission and are currently mandatory and enforceable.
Because Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 incorporates the
requirements from Reliability Standards PRC-006-0, PRC-007-0, and PRC-
009-0 some of the existing requirements will become mandatory and
enforceable (where previously they were voluntary), while others
continue to be so. To properly account for the burden on respondents,
the Commission will treat the burden resulting from NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 as essentially new to the industry, even
though it is likely that most applicable entities have already been
complying.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ PRC-006-0 was not approved by the Commission but remained
effective as a NERC-approved standard (but not mandatory or
enforceable). The other three standards were approved by the
Commission. Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g,
Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \42\ This statement is made because currently effective
Reliability Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0 required UFLS entities
to follow the UFLS program implemented by Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0. Therefore, it is likely that entities have already been
following the requirements contained in Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. The reporting requirements in proposed Reliability Standard
EOP-

003-2 are virtually the same as those in currently effective
Reliability Standard EOP-003-1. The difference is that proposed
Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 proposes to eliminate balancing
authorities from Requirements R2 and from Measure M1.\43\ This
requirement and measure deal with establishing and documenting
automatic load shedding plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Balancing authorities are also removed from Requirements R4
and R7, but these do not have reporting requirements associated with
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of 7/
29/11. According to the NERC compliance registry, there are 72 planning
coordinators and 126 balancing authorities. The individual burden
estimates are based on the time needed to gather data, run studies, and
analyze study results to design or update the UFLS programs.
Additionally, documentation and the review of UFLS program results by
supervisors and management is included in the administrative
estimations. These are consistent with estimates for similar tasks in
other Commission approved standards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of       Number of     Average burden
   PRC-006-1 (Automatic underfrequency load       respondents    responses per      hours per      Total annual
                shedding) \44\                     annually       respondent        response       burden hours
                                                           (1)             (2)               (3)     (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCs *: Design and document Automatic UFLS                                                    120           8,640
 Program......................................
-----------------------------------------------                                ---------------------------------
PCs: Management Review of Documentation.......              72               1                40           2,880
-----------------------------------------------                                ---------------------------------
PCs: Record Retention.........................                                                16           1,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ..............  ..............  ................          12,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans) \45\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of BAs * from Reporting Requirements               126               1  Reporting    -10           -1260
 in R2 and M1 (Burden Reduction)..............
                                                                               ---------------------------------
                                                ..............  ..............     Record     -1            -126
                                                                                Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................  ..............  ..............  .........  .....          -1,386
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Change in Burden..........................  ..............  ..............  .........  .....          11,286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PC = Planning Coordinator; BA = Balancing Authority.

    Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Compliance/Documentation) =
11,286 hours.
    Total Reporting Cost for Planning Coordinators: = 11,520 hours @
$120/hour = $1,382,400.
    Total Record Retention Cost for Planning Coordinators: 1,152 hours
@ $28/hour = $32,256.
    Total Reporting and Record Retention Cost Savings for Balancing
Authorities: = (1,260 hours @ $120/hour) + (126 hours @ $28/hour) =
$154,728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 applies to both
planning coordinators and to UFLS entities. However, the burden
associated with the UFLS entities is not new because it was
accounted for under Commission approved Reliability Standards PRC-
007-0 and PRC-009-0.
    \45\ Transmission operators also have to comply with Reliability
Standard EOP-003-2 but since the applicable reporting requirements
(and associated burden) have not changed from the existing standard
to the proposed standard these entities are not included here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention) \46\: =
$1,414,656-$154,728 = $1,259,928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The hourly reporting cost is based on the cost of an
engineer to implement the requirements of the rule. The record
retention cost comes from Commission staff research on record
retention requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
    Action: Proposed Collection FERC-725A.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0244.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule proposes to
approve the requested modifications to Reliability Standards pertaining
to automatic underfrequency load shedding. The proposed Reliability
Standards help ensure the reliable operation of the bulk electric
system by arresting declining frequency and assisting recovery of
frequency following system events leading to frequency degradation.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed
Reliability Standards and made a determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements, if
accepted, should conform to the Commission's expectation for UFLS
programs as well as procedures within the energy industry.
    66. 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, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    67. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your
comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. For security reasons,
comments to OMB should be submitted by e-mail to: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should include Docket
Number RM11-20 and OMB Control Number 1902-0244.

V. Environmental Analysis

    68. 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.\47\ 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.\48\ The actions
proposed here fall within this categorical exclusion in the
Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \48\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    69. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \49\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\50\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \50\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \51\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 proposes to establish
design, assessment, and documentation requirements for automatic UFLS
program. It will be applicable to planning coordinators and entities
that are responsible for the ownership, operation, or control of UFLS
equipment. Proposed Standard EOP-003-2 proposes to remove balancing
authorities from having to comply with R2 and M1 of the standard.
Comparison of the NERC compliance registry with data submitted to the
Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that
perhaps as many as 8 small entities are registered as planning
coordinators and 18 small entities are registered as balancing
authorities. The Commission estimates that the small planning
coordinators to whom the proposed Reliability Standard will apply will
incur compliance and recordkeeping costs of $157,184 ($19,648 per
planning coordinator) associated with the Standard's requirements. The
small balancing authorities will receive a savings of $154,728 ($8,596
per balancing authority). Accordingly, proposed Reliability Standards
PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 should not impose a significant operating cost
increase or decrease on the affected small entities.
    71. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that
these Reliability Standards will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

VII. Comment Procedures

    72. 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 December 27, 2011. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM11-20-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    73. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    74. 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.
    75. 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.

VIII. Document Availability

    76. 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 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    77. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    78. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power; Electric utilities; Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Spitzer is not
participating.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27625 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 863-865]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71213; File No. SR-ISE-2013-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

 December 31, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 23, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to waive CMM
membership application fees for affiliated CMMs, and to charge an
incremental annual regulatory fee for such CMMs. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to waive Competitive
Market Maker (``CMM'') membership application fees for affiliated CMMs,
i.e., CMMs that share common ownership with another CMM, and to charge
an incremental annual regulatory fee for such CMMs. The Exchange
believes that these changes, which will lower the cost of maintaining
separate CMM memberships for affiliated CMMs, will encourage current
CMMs to register additional broker dealer entities as necessary to act
as Alternative Primary Market Makers (``Alternative PMMs'') on the ISE.
    The Exchange currently operates an Alternative PMM program whereby
the ISE appoints CMMs that meet certain qualifications to serve as
Alternative PMMs for options products that have not been allocated to a
willing PMM.\3\ The purpose of this program is to enable the Exchange
to list new products, or continue trading listed products, that are not
supported by a PMM, by offering such allocations to appropriately
qualified CMMs that will have all of the responsibilities and
privileges of a PMM under ISE Rules with respect to appointed options
classes. Each broker dealer entity acting as an Alternative PMM,
however, must be registered as a CMM on the ISE. Due to capital and
other business requirements a CMM may need to house their Alternative
PMM appointments in a separate affiliated broker dealer entity, which
would be required to maintain a separate CMM membership on the ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 59250 (January 14, 2009), 74 FR
4062 (January 22, 2009) (ISE-2008-90). PMM allocations are voluntary
and require the consent of the PMM being allocated the options
class. See ISE Rule 802.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, since these affiliated entities operate as distinct
members these firms must pay a one-time CMM application fee of $5,500
for each entity. As the incremental cost associated with processing an
affiliate's membership application is negligible, and given the
significant benefits of attracting CMMs willing to quote unallocated
options classes as Alternative PMMs, the Exchange is proposing to waive
the application fee for CMM applicants that share at least 75% common
ownership with another CMM as reflected on each

firm's Form BD, Schedule A. The waiver will apply only to the one-time
CMM membership application fee, and the affiliated CMM will be subject
to all other fees, such as network and access fees.
    The Exchange also charges CMMs an annual regulatory fee in order to
cover the cost of surveilling these members and performing other
regulatory responsibilities. For a CMM that is not also a Primary
Market Maker (``PMM'') this regulatory fee is $5,000 per year for the
first CMM membership and $1,000 per year for each additional CMM
membership. The lower fee charged for additional CMM memberships after
the first reflects the lower incremental cost to the Exchange of
surveilling such additional memberships. As with additional CMM
memberships within the same entity, the Exchange does not have to
dedicate the same level of resources to surveilling the activities of
affiliated CMMs. The Exchange therefore proposes to only charge the
higher $5,000 per year regulatory fee for the first CMM membership
within each group of affiliated companies. Affiliated CMMs will pay the
$1,000 per year incremental regulatory fee charged for additional CMM
memberships after the first. The Exchange is not proposing any changes
to the annual regulatory fee for CMMs that are also PMMs as that fee,
which is $1,000 per year for each CMM membership, already reflects the
incremental regulatory costs of surveilling such members. Again, the
Exchange believes that this change will benefit all market participants
that trade on the Exchange by attracting additional CMMs to act as
Alternative PMMs in options classes not allocated to a PMM.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is fair and equitable to waive the
membership application fee for affiliated CMMs due to the negligible
cost associated with processing membership applications from such
members. This waiver will allow affiliated CMMs to become members
without incurring additional ``start-up'' fees that do not reflect the
limited resources expended by the ISE in processing their applications,
and will thereby encourage current CMMs to register additional
affiliated CMMs as necessary to act as Alternative PMMs. The Exchange
similarly believes that it is fair and equitable to charge an
incremental regulatory fee to affiliated CMMs due to the incremental
cost of regulating these members. This treatment is consistent with how
the ISE currently charges regulatory fees for additional CMM
memberships within the same entity, and the Exchange is merely
extending this treatment to additional CMM memberships that are held
within the same affiliated group of companies. By charging the higher
initial regulatory fee to only the first CMM membership within each
group of affiliated companies, the ISE believes that it is more
accurately reflecting the costs associated with regulating affiliated
members. Moreover, the Exchange believes that this change will
encourage more affiliated CMMs to maintain memberships on the Exchange
as necessary to support the Alternative PMM program, which, in turn,
will benefit all market participants that trade on the ISE. The
Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to apply
the proposed application fee waiver and incremental regulatory fee only
to CMMs. As explained above, these fee changes are being proposed in
order to encourage CMMs to seek Alternative PMM appointments. The
Exchange believes that reducing the membership application and
regulatory costs for affiliated CMMs will encourage more CMMs to
register additional affiliated broker dealers as CMMs in order to quote
options classes as Alternative PMMs. Greater participation in the
Alternative PMM program will benefit all market participants that trade
on the Exchange as it will allow the ISE to list additional options
products, which will be supported by the Alternative PMMs. Alternative
PMMs have all the responsibilities of regular PMMs, including, among
other things, conducting the opening rotation on a daily basis and
providing continuous quotations in appointed options classes.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\6\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change should have little competitive impact as it merely aligns
the CMM membership application and regulatory fees with the cost of
processing these applications and regulating these members. While the
proposed rule change only applies to CMMs, the Exchange does not
believe that this will impose a significant burden on competition as
all market participants that trade on the Exchange will benefit from
the resulting allocation of options classes to Alternative PMMs. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and
consider adjusting, its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed fee changes reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\8\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2013-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-70 and should be submitted by
January 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31604 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][NOTICES]


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6255-6257]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01926]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10592-01-OA]

Request for Nominations to the EPA Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites
nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines
to be considered for appointment to the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB). Appointments will be announced by the Administrator.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
March 2, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the chartered
SAB membership, appointment process, and schedule, please contact Dr.
Suhair

Shallal, DFO, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
[email protected], or Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, by telephone at
(202) 564-2155 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB is a chartered Federal Advisory
Committee, established in 1978, under the authority of the
Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act
(ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific
and technical peer review, consultation, advice, and recommendations to
the EPA Administrator on the scientific bases for EPA's actions and
programs. Members of the SAB constitute distinguished bodies of non-EPA
scientists, engineers, economists, and behavioral scientists who are
nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective
fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a two or
three-year term and serve as Special Government Employees who provide
independent expert advice to the agency. All the work of SAB committees
and ad-hoc panels is conducted under the auspices of the chartered SAB.
Additional information about the SAB is available at https://sab.epa.gov.
    Expertise Sought for the SAB: The SAB Staff Office invites
nominations of individuals to serve on the chartered SAB with expertise
or extensive experience in the following scientific disciplines and
topics as they relate to human health and the environment: air quality;
agricultural sciences and economics; analytical chemistry; atmospheric
sciences; benefit-cost analysis; chemical safety; climate science;
citizen science; community environmental health; dose-response
assessment; drinking water; drinking water engineering; ecological
sciences and ecological assessment; ecological risk assessment;
ecosystem services; economics; energy and the environment; engineering;
environmental justice; epidemiology; exposure assessment; forestry;
geochemistry; health sciences; human health risk assessment; hydrology;
hydrogeology; medicine; microbiology; modeling; pediatrics; pesticide
risk assessment, public health; physiologically based pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) modeling; risk assessment; social, behavioral and decision
sciences; statistics; sustainability; radiological risk assessment;
toxicology; uncertainty analysis; water quality; water quantity and
reuse; and waste management.
    Members selected to the chartered SAB may also participate on
standing committees of the SAB. Board members with demonstrated
scientific credentials, disciplinary expertise in relevant fields, and
experience may be asked to participate on the following SAB Standing
Committees:
    (1) The Agricultural Science Committee, which provides advice to
the chartered SAB on matters that have been determined to have a
significant direct impact on farming and agriculture-related
industries.
    (2) The Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee, which provides
advice to the chartered SAB regarding selected toxicological reviews of
environmental chemicals.
    (3) The Climate Science Committee, which provides advice to the
chartered SAB on climate change science and the effects of climate
change.
    (4) The Drinking Water Committee, which provides advice to the
chartered SAB on the scientific and technical aspects of EPA's national
drinking water program.
    (5) The Economic Analysis Committee, which provides advice to the
chartered SAB on the economic analysis of EPA programs.
    (6) The Environmental Justice Science Committee, which provides
advice to the chartered SAB on the scientific and technical aspects of
environmental justice to improve the environment and/or public health
in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental health
hazards and risks.
    (7) The Radiation Advisory Committee, which provides advice to the
chartered SAB on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation
risk assessment.
    Selection Criteria for the SAB and the SAB Committees include:

--Demonstrated scientific credentials and disciplinary expertise in
relevant fields;
--Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability
to work constructively and effectively on committees;
--Background and experiences that would help members contribute to the
diversity of perspectives on the committee, e.g., geographical, social,
cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations; and other
considerations; and
--For the committee as a whole, the collective breadth and depth of
scientific expertise are considered.

    As the SAB and its standing committees undertake specific advisory
activities, the SAB Staff Office will consider two additional criteria
for each new activity: absence of financial conflicts of interest and
absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality.
    How to Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization
may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to
these advisory committees. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations
should be submitted in electronic format (preferred) using the online
nomination form under the ``Nomination of Experts'' category at the
bottom of the SAB home page at https://sab.epa.gov. To be considered,
all nominations should include the information requested below. EPA
values and welcomes diversity. All qualified candidates are encouraged
to apply regardless of gender, race, disability, or ethnicity.
    Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which
nominees are to be considered. The following information should be
provided on the nomination form: contact information for the person
making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the
disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee. Nominees
will be contacted and asked to provide additional information,
including a curriculum vitae and a biographical sketch of the nominee
(indicating current position, educational background, research
activities, sources of research funding for the last two years, and
recent service on other national advisory committees or national
professional organizations). To help the agency evaluate the
effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please indicate how you learned
of this nomination opportunity. Persons having questions about the
nomination process, or the public comment process described below, or
those who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website,
should contact the DFO for the committee, as identified above. The DFO
will acknowledge receipt of nominations and in that acknowledgment,
will invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the
nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination, such as
availability to participate as a member of the committee; how the
nominee's background, skills, and experience would contribute to the
diversity of the committee; and any questions the nominee has regarding
membership. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified
by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and any additional
experts identified by the SAB Staff Office, will be posted in a List of
Candidates on the SAB website at https://sab.epa.gov. Public comments
on each List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days from the date
the

list is posted. The public will be requested to provide relevant
information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff
Office should consider in evaluating candidates.
    Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the
``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government
Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential
form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict
between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government
Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a
loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be
viewed and downloaded through the ``Ethics Requirements for Advisors''
link on the SAB home page at https://sab.epa.gov. This form should not
be submitted as part of a nomination.

V. Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-01926 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P