[Federal Register: October 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 57354-57355]
[DOCID:fr02oc08-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8717-5; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0700]

BASINS 4.0 Climate Assessment Tool (CAT): Supporting
Documentation and Users Manual

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft
document titled, ``BASINS 4.0 Climate Assessment Tool (CAT): Supporting
Documentation and Users Manual'' (EPA/600/R-08/088). The document was
prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within
EPA's Office of Research and Development.
    The Office of Research and Development, in partnership with EPA's
Office of Water, recently developed a Climate Assessment Tool (CAT) for
the Office of Water's BASINS 4.0 watershed modeling system. BASINS CAT
provides a flexible set of capabilities for creating user-defined
climate change scenarios for assessing the influence of climate
variability and change on water quantity and quality using the
Hydrologic Simulation Program--FORTRAN (HSPF) watershed model. This
report provides documentation and technical user support including a
discussion of tool capabilities with hands-on tutorials demonstrating
the application of BASINS CAT to a range of problems. BASINS 4.0 (with
the BASINS CAT) can be downloaded from EPA's BASINS Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/b3webdwn.htm.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality

guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent, and should not be construed to represent, any
Agency policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments
submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins on the October 2, 2008,
and ends November 3, 2008. Technical comments should be in writing and
must be received by EPA by November 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``BASINS 4.0 Climate Assessment Tool (CAT):
Supporting Documentation and Users Manual'' is available primarily via
the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home
page under the Recent Additions and the Data and Publications menus at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available
from the Information Management Team, NCEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are requesting a paper copy, please
provide your name, your mailing address, and the document title,
``BASINS 4.0 Climate Assessment Tool (CAT): Supporting Documentation
and Users Manual.''
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://
www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information, contact Thomas Johnson, NCEA; telephone:
703-347-8618; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2008-
0700, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334 EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit
three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number
pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original
and three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2008-0700. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Rebecca Clark,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E8-23247 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 34353-34355]
[DOCID:fr17jn08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57945; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Listing and Trading on the Exchange of Options on the SPDR Gold
Trust

June 10, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 3, 2008, the NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
NASDAQ filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend certain NASDAQ Rules to enable the listing
and trading on the Exchange of options on the SPDR Gold Trust. The text
of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nasdaq.com.

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 Exchange 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

Exchange 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 Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is
to permit the listing and trading of options on the SPDR Gold Trust.
    Currently, Chapter IV, Section 3(i) of the NASDAQ Options Rules
permits only certain Fund Shares (also referred to herein as exchange
traded funds (``ETFs'')) to underlie options traded on the Exchange.
Specifically, to be eligible as an underlying security for options
traded on the Exchange, an ETF must represent interests in registered
investment companies (or series thereof) organized as open-end
management investment companies, unit investment trusts or similar
entities that are principally traded on a national securities exchange
or through the facilities of a national securities association and
reported as ``national market'' securities, and that hold portfolios of
securities comprising or otherwise based on or representing investments
in broad-based indexes or portfolios of securities (or that hold
securities in one or more other registered investment companies that
themselves hold such portfolios of securities). The proposed rule
change would expand the types of ETFs that may be approved for options
trading on the Exchange to include the SPDR Gold Trust.
    The Exchange states that apart from allowing the SPDR Gold Trust to
be an underlying for options traded on the Exchange as described above,
the listing standards for ETFs would remain unchanged from those that
apply under current Exchange rules. ETFs on which options may be listed
and traded would still have to be listed and traded on a national
securities exchange and satisfy the other listing standards set forth
in Chapter IV, Section 3(i) of the NASDAQ Options Rules.
    Specifically, in addition to satisfying the aforementioned listing
requirements, Fund Shares would have to: (1) Meet the criteria and
standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Chapter IV, Section 3;
or (2) be available for creation or redemption each business day from
or through the Fund in cash or in kind at a price related to net asset
value, and the Fund is obligated to issue Fund Shares in a specified
aggregate number even if some or all of the securities required to be
deposited have not been received by the Fund, subject to the condition
that the person obligated to deposit the securities has undertaken to
deliver the securities as soon as possible and such undertaking is
secured by the delivery and maintenance of collateral consisting of
cash or cash equivalents satisfactory to the Fund, all as described in
the Fund's prospectus.
    The Exchange proposes that the current continued listing standards
for options on ETFs would apply to options on the SPDR Gold Trust.
Specifically, under Chapter IV, Section 4(h) of the NASDAQ Options
Rules, options on Fund Shares may be subject to the suspension of
opening transactions as follows: (1) Following the initial twelve-month
period beginning upon the commencement of trading of the Fund Shares,
there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of the Fund
Shares for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (2) the value of the
index or portfolio of securities on which Fund Shares are based is no
longer calculated or available; or (3) such other event occurs or
condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further
dealing on the Exchange inadvisable.
    Additionally, the SPDR Gold Trust would not be deemed to meet the
requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange would not open
for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class
covering the SPDR Gold Trust, if the SPDR Gold Trust ceases to be an
``NMS stock'' as provided for in paragraph (b)(v) of Chapter IV,
Section 4 of the NASDAQ Options Rules or if the SPDR Gold Trust is
halted from trading on its primary market. The Exchange believes that
the addition of the SPDR Gold Trust to Chapter IV, Section 3(i) of the
NASDAQ Options Rules would not have any effect on the rules pertaining
to position and exercise limits \5\ or margin.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASDAQ Options Rules, Chapter III, Sections 7, Position
Limits, and 9, Exercise Limits.
    \6\ See NASDAQ Options Rule Chapter XIII, Section 3, Margin
Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures applicable
to trading in options on the SPDR Gold Trust would be similar to those
applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently traded on the
Exchange. Also, the Exchange may obtain information from the New York
Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (a member of the Intermarket Surveillance
Group) related to any financial instrument traded there that is based,
in whole or in part, upon an interest in, or performance of, gold.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that amending its rules to accommodate the
listing and trading of options on the SPDR Gold Trust will benefit
investors by providing them with valuable risk management tools.
Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that
it is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market in a manner consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange states that written comments on the proposed rule
change were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to

designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
Exchange can list and trade the Shares immediately. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to permit the listing
and trading of options on the SPDR Gold Trust without further
delay.\11\ The Commission notes the proposal is substantively identical
to proposals that were recently approved by the Commission, and does
not raise any new regulatory issues.\12\ For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57894 (May 30,
2008) (SR-Amex-2008-15; SR-CBOE-2005-11; SR-ISE-2008-12; SR-
NYSEArca-2008-52; and SR-Phlx-2008-17) (approving the listing and
trading of options on the SPDR Gold Trust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-051 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-051. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Commission's 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NASDAQ-2008-051 and should
be submitted on or before July 8, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-13499 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10349-10354]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-5-000]

Implementation of Dynamic Line Ratings

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks
comment on whether and how the required use of dynamic line ratings
(DLR) is needed to ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates. The
Commission further seeks comment on: Whether the lack of DLR
requirements renders current wholesale rates unjust and unreasonable;
potential criteria for DLR requirements; the benefits, costs, and
challenges of implementing DLRs; the nature of potential DLR
requirements; and potential timeframes for implementing DLR
requirements.

DATES: Initial Comments are due April 25, 2022, and Reply Comments are
due May 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov is
preferred.
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software must be filed in
acceptable native applications or print-to-PDF format, but not in
scanned or picture format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail comments via the U.S. Postal Service to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered comments or comments sent via
any other carrier should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments,

see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Kheloussi (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202)
502-6391, [email protected].
    Ryan Stroschein (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comment on whether and
how the required use of dynamic line ratings (DLR) \1\ is needed to
ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates. The Commission further
seeks comment on: Whether the lack of DLR requirements renders current
wholesale rates \2\ unjust and unreasonable; potential criteria for DLR
requirements; the benefits, costs, and challenges of implementing DLRs;
the nature of potential DLR requirements; and potential timeframes for
implementing DLR requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A DLR is a transmission line rating that: ``(1) applies to a
time period of not greater than one hour; and (2) reflects up-to-
date forecasts of inputs such as (but not limited to) ambient air
temperature, wind, solar heating intensity, transmission line
tension, or transmission line sag.'' Managing Transmission Line
Ratings, Order No. 881, Federal Register, 87 FR 2244 (Jan. 13,
2022), 177 FERC ] 61,179, at P 7 (2021).
    \2\ Consistent with Order No. 881, by ``wholesale rates,'' we
refer to both rates for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce and rates for the sale of electric energy at
wholesale in interstate commerce. Id. P 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    1. On December 16, 2021, the Commission issued Order No. 881 in
Docket No. RM20-16-000. In that order, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission revised the Commission's pro
forma open access transmission tariff (OATT) and the Commission's
regulations to improve the accuracy and transparency of electric
transmission line ratings.\3\ Specifically, the Commission found that
the use of only seasonal and static temperature assumptions in
developing transmission line ratings would result in transmission line
ratings that do not accurately represent the transfer capability of the
transmission system.\4\ The Commission found that inaccurate
transmission line ratings result in unjust and unreasonable Commission-
jurisdictional rates.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. P 1.
    \4\ Id. P 3.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Accordingly, the Commission required, among other things and
with limited exceptions: (1) Transmission providers \6\ to use ambient-
adjusted ratings (AARs) \7\ as the basis for evaluation of transmission
service requests that will end within 10 days of the request and as the
basis for their determination of the necessity of certain curtailment,
interruption, or redispatch of transmission service anticipated to
occur within those 10 days; (2) transmission providers to use seasonal
line ratings as the basis for evaluation of transmission service
requests ending more than 10 days from the date of the request and as
the basis for the determination of the necessity of curtailment,
interruption, or redispatch of transmission service that is anticipated
to occur more than 10 days in the future; and (3) regional transmission
organizations and independent system operators (RTOs/ISOs) to establish
and maintain the systems and procedures necessary to allow transmission
owners in their regions to electronically update transmission line
ratings on at least an hourly basis (thereby enabling the RTO/ISO to
use DLRs from transmission owners that voluntarily adopt them).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Consistent with Order No. 881, we use transmission provider
to mean any public utility that owns, operates, or controls
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce. 18 CFR 37.3 (2021). Therefore, unless otherwise
noted, ``transmission provider'' refers only to public utility
transmission providers. Furthermore, the term ``public utility'' as
found in section 201(e) of the FPA means ``any person who owns or
operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
under this subchapter.'' 16 U.S.C. 824(e).
    \7\ An AAR is a transmission line rating that: ``(1) applies to
a time period of not greater than one hour; (2) reflects an up-to-
date forecast of ambient air temperature across the time period to
which the rating applies; (3) reflects the absence of solar heating
during nighttime periods where the local sunrise/sunset times used
to determine daytime and nighttime periods are updated at least
monthly, if not more frequently; and (4) is calculated at least each
hour, if not more frequently.'' Order No. 881, 177 FERC ] 61,179 at
P 4.
    \8\ Id. PP 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. While acknowledging in Order No. 881 that, in certain
situations, using transmission line ratings that are based on factors
beyond forecasted ambient air temperatures and the presence or absence
of solar heating--such as DLRs--may lead to greater accuracy of
transmission line ratings, the Commission declined to mandate DLR
implementation based on the record in that proceeding.\9\ Instead, the
Commission incorporated that record on DLRs into the instant
proceeding, Docket No. AD22-5-000, which the Commission opened to
further explore DLR implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. PP 7-8, 36, 252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Commission explained that, unlike AARs, DLRs are based not
only on forecasted ambient air temperatures and the presence or absence
of solar heating, but also on other weather conditions, such as wind,
cloud cover, solar heating intensity (instead of only daytime/nighttime
distinctions used in AARs), and precipitation, and/or on transmission
line conditions such as tension or sag.\10\ The Commission agreed with
commenters that highlighted the benefits to DLR implementation.\11\ For
example, the Commission agreed with the Exelon Corporation (Exelon)
that there may be applications in which DLRs can provide net benefits
to customers, such as when the limiting element for a transmission
facility experiencing significant congestion is the conductor and
conditions besides ambient air temperature have a consistent and
significant impact on the power carrying capabilities of the line. The
Commission also acknowledged that the use of DLRs generally allows for
greater power flows than would otherwise be allowed and that their use
can also detect situations where power flows should be reduced to
maintain safe and reliable operation and avoid unnecessary wear on
transmission equipment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. P 7.
    \11\ Id. P 253.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Despite the benefits of DLR implementation, the Commission
recognized that DLR implementation also presents additional costs and
challenges not found in AAR implementation, such as costs associated
with placement of sensors, cybersecurity, and other costs.\13\ The
Commission found that the record in the Order No. 881 proceeding,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, was not sufficient for it to evaluate the
relative benefits and costs and challenges of DLR implementation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. P 254.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    6. We are issuing this NOI to further explore whether DLR
implementation is required to ensure just and reasonable wholesale
rates. We invite all interested persons to submit comments and reply
comments on any or all of the questions listed. Commenters need not
answer all the questions. Commenters should organize responses
consistent with the structure of the attached questions.

Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed,
including in Docket Nos. RM20-16-000 and AD19-15-000, but are
encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of previous material.
Initial comments must be submitted on or before 60 days after the date
of publication of this NOI in the Federal Register. Reply comments must
be submitted on or before 90 days after the date of publication of this
NOI in the Federal Register.

A. Questions on the Need for DLR Requirements

    7. In Order No. 881, the Commission found that transmission line
ratings directly affect wholesale rates because transmission line
ratings and wholesale rates are inextricably linked.\15\ It explained
that transmission line ratings represent the maximum transfer
capability on a transmission line, which, in turn, determines the
quantity of energy that can be transmitted from suppliers to load. The
Commission explained that, all else equal, as transfer capability
declines, wholesale rates increase. The Commission also observed that
inaccurate transmission line ratings can result in underutilization (or
overutilization) of existing transmission facilities, thereby sending a
signal that there is less (or more) transfer capability than is truly
available.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. P 30.
    \16\ Id. PP 30, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Q1) As a threshold matter, even for transmission lines that
incorporate AARs, is there a need to further increase the accuracy
of transmission lines ratings through the implementation of DLRs to
ensure just and reasonable wholesale rates? Why or why not? If yes,
please explain whether a requirement by the Commission to adopt DLRs
is needed.
    (Q2) What, if any, barriers to DLR implementation exist today?
Are potential requirements to implement DLRs necessary to address
these existing barriers? Why or why not?

B. Questions on Potential Criteria for DLR Requirements

    8. Commenters in the Order No. 881 proceeding expressed a range of
opinions on whether and how the Commission should require the
implementation of DLRs. On one end of the spectrum, Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.'s Market Monitoring Unit (SPP MMU) stated that it supported
a requirement for DLR implementation on all transmission lines.\17\
Similarly, Industrial Customer Organizations and the R Street Institute
contended that DLRs should be required by default, with exceptions
given when justified by cost-benefit analyses.\18\ On the other end,
many commenters, including nearly all transmission owners that filed
comments about DLRs, either opposed a requirement to implement DLRs on
all transmission lines \19\ or opposed a DLR requirement in any
form.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ SPP MMU, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 4 (filed Mar.
22, 2021).
    \18\ R Street Institute, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 3
(filed Mar. 22, 2021); Industrial Customer Organizations, Comments,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 5 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
    \19\ Arizona Public Service Company, Comments, Docket No. RM20-
16-000, at 8 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); New York Transmission Owners,
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 2 (filed Mar. 22, 2021);
Indicated PJM Transmission Owners, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000,
at 13 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 11-12 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
    \20\ American Electric Power Service Corporation, Comments,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Dominion Energy
Services Inc., Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 9 (filed Mar.
22, 2021); Entergy Services LLC, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000,
at 14 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22, 2021);
Exelon, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 3 (filed Mar. 22,
2021); PacifiCorp, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 5-6 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and
the Large Public Power Council, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at
3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); MISO Transmission Owners, Comments, Docket
No. RM20-16-000, at 45-46 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); ITC Holdings Corp.,
Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 14-15 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Other commenters supported targeted or limited DLR
implementation. For example, the WATT Coalition (WATT) and Clean Energy
Parties proposed criteria for requiring DLR implementation and
contended that such criteria could help overcome concern about costs of
DLRs exceeding benefits.\21\ Specifically, WATT proposed that the
Commission require ``sensor-based DLRs'' on all thermally limited
transmission lines rated 69 kV or greater when: (1) Market congestion
totaling over $1 million has occurred within the past year; (2) the
transmission line is identified as being a constraint projected to have
market congestion over $1 million over the coming three years as a part
of the current RTO/ISO transmission planning cycle process, which can
be economic or reliability based; (3) thermally limited transmission
lines show up as limiting in generator interconnection system impact
studies; or (4) generation curtailed by more than 10% on average for
one year due to factors that include transmission line capacity.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 10-11 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021); Clean Energy Parties, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-
000, at 7-10 (filed Mar. 22, 2021); American Clean Power Association
and the Solar Energy Industries Association (ACPA/SEIA), Comments,
Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 9-10 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
    \22\ WATT, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 10-11 (filed
Mar. 22, 2021).

    (Q3) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation,
should it require the implementation only on certain transmission
lines, and, if so, what set of criteria should be considered to
identify transmission lines for DLR implementation? Examples of such
criteria could include congestion, curtailment levels, voltage
levels, infrastructure, and/or geography/terrain. Explain why such
criteria would identify the set of transmission lines on which DLRs
need to be implemented in order to produce just and reasonable
wholesale rates.
    (Q4) How should transmission lines be evaluated for whether they
satisfy such criteria, both initially and going forward? Please
estimate the number and proportion of transmission lines that would
likely be implicated by any criteria you recommend.
    (Q5) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation based
on certain criteria, should the criteria be regularly reevaluated to
ensure such criteria continue to ensure accurate transmission line
ratings, and, if so, at what interval(s)? How should such regular
reevaluations work practically?
    (Q6) If such criteria included the magnitude of congestion on a
transmission line, what metrics exist that assess the magnitude of
congestion in both or either RTO/ISO and/or non-RTO/ISO regions? For
any congestion metrics suggested, what data sources are available?
    (Q7) Implementation of the requirements adopted in Order No. 881
are expected to change congestion patterns. How should these
congestion pattern changes be accounted for when considering whether
a transmission line satisfies the criteria established as part of
any potential DLR requirements?
    (Q8) What are the differences, if any, between RTOs/ISOs and
non-RTO/ISO transmission providers that the Commission should
account for when considering any DLR requirements?
    (Q9) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation based
on certain criteria, should it require that new transmission lines
be evaluated to determine whether they must implement DLRs? Are
there any characteristics of new transmission lines that warrant
different criteria?
    (Q10) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation, how
should that requirement be considered in regional transmission
planning and interconnection processes?
    (Q11) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation based
on certain criteria, what transparency measures should the
Commission require? For example, should the Commission consider
requiring transmission providers to submit informational reports
that show which transmission lines meet any determined criteria for
DLR implementation? And/or should the Commission require
transmission providers to post the same on their Open Access Same-
Time Information System websites?

C. Questions on the Benefits, Costs, and Challenges of Implementing
DLRs

    10. While the Commission in Order No. 881 highlighted the potential

benefits of DLR implementation, including potential increases in the
accuracy of transmission line ratings and potentially greater power
flows, it recognized that there are costs and challenges associated
with DLR implementation. Some commenters in the Order No. 881
proceeding provided DLR cost estimates, but there was limited detail
around those estimates and those estimates varied. For example, BPA
asserted that DLR implementation would require investment of
potentially over $1 million per transmission line in monitoring
equipment, software, and hardware to submit and host the data.\23\ MISO
Transmission Owners contended that DLR implementation could cost
between $100,000 and $200,000 per transmission line, and thus the
overall cost to implement DLRs for all transmission lines in MISO would
be approximately $1.5 billion.\24\ SPP estimated that DLR
implementation that requires an energy management system (EMS) upgrade
would cost transmission owners up to $1 million and, without upgrading
the EMS, DLR implementation would cost an additional $100,000 to
$500,000 annually in additional supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) communications with the reliability coordinator's
EMS.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ BPA, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 6 (filed Mar. 22,
2021).
    \24\ MISO Transmission Owners, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000,
at 47 (filed Mar. 22, 2021) (deriving $1.5 billion by estimating
$150,000 per line multiplied by 10,000 lines on the MISO system).
    \25\ SPP, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 12 (filed Mar.
22, 2021).

    (Q12) For any DLR requirement criteria you identified in
response to question Q3 above, please explain and, if possible,
quantify the potential annual gross market benefits that would be
expected to result from such a requirement.
    (a) If possible, please also provide estimated upper and lower
bounds on such gross market benefit estimations based on favorable
and unfavorable assumptions.
    (b) How might these benefits change with geography/terrain,
communication infrastructure, and transmission path?
    (c) To what extent might DLR implementation shift congestion to
new areas? How would these shifts in congestions patterns affect the
overall benefits of DLR implementation?
    (d) Please describe the method and assumptions used to estimate
gross market benefits.
    (Q13) If you have experience implementing (or evaluating the
implementation of) DLRs, please describe your experience and, if
applicable, explain your specific DLR design, installation, and
operating decisions, choice of facilities on which to implement
DLRs, the implications for reliability, and how such DLR
implementation affected transmission transfer capability.
    (Q14) What are the expected costs and challenges of implementing
DLRs (separate from the costs associated with Order No. 881
implementation)?
    (a) How are these costs and challenges divided between initial
implementation (e.g., sensor purchase and installation, EMS
upgrades, and communications upgrades) and ongoing operations and
maintenance (e.g., sensor maintenance, communications maintenance,
and forecasting)?
    (b) How might these costs and challenges change with geography/
terrain, communication infrastructure, and transmission path?
    (c) Are there any published reports or studies assessing the
costs, benefits and challenges of DLR implementation? If so, please
identify and briefly describe these studies.
    (d) Please identify any factors or situations that might cause
DLR implementation to be prohibitively expensive, and please
describe alternative implementation approaches that could limit
those costs.
    (e) Please describe any advantages or disadvantages related to
costs and challenges to implementing DLRs concurrently with the
requirements of Order No. 881 (as opposed to after Order No. 881 is
implemented). For example, are the EMS and communication upgrades
required to implement AARs sufficient to support the use of DLRs?
    (Q15) Please describe the cybersecurity challenges of DLR
implementation. What are the potential impacts to reliable
operations if the digital devices that monitor or communicate line
conditions used for establishing DLRs are manipulated or rendered
inoperable by a cyber event? What relevant procedural or technical
cybersecurity controls exist that would mitigate such risk?
    (Q16) If the Commission were to require DLR implementation,
should the Commission direct NERC to evaluate how this requirement
could introduce new risks to the reliable operation of the BES and
whether any standards require modification to address any risks?

D. Questions on the Nature of Potential DLR Requirements

    11. DLRs are generally based on a combination of real-time measured
data and various forecasts that are used to compute up-to-date
transmission line ratings. The real-time measured data is typically
gathered using field located sensors.
    12. In their comments in the Order No. 881 proceeding, WATT
suggested a requirement that transmission providers implement ``sensor-
based DLRs'' in certain circumstances (i.e., a requirement that
transmission line ratings incorporate real-time data from field-based
sensors on weather and/or transmission line parameters, such as sag,
tension or temperature).\26\ Alternatively, transmission line ratings
could be based on up-to-date forecasts of additional weather input and/
or transmission line parameter values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ WATT, Comment, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 10-11 (filed Mar.
22, 2021); ACPA/SEIA, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at 9-10
(filed Mar. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The following questions seek information regarding potential
approaches for a DLR requirement.

    (Q17) If the Commission required DLRs in some circumstances,
would it be appropriate to require transmission providers to
calculate transmission line ratings based on up-to-date forecasts of
additional weather factors beyond those required in Order No. 881?
Why or why not? If so, please explain what additional factors (e.g.,
wind speed, wind direction, solar irradiance (beyond day/night))
should be considered in transmission line rating calculations.
    (Q18) To what extent would it be appropriate to rely on sensor-
based measurements of line parameters \27\ such as line sag, line
tension, or conductor temperature in calculating line ratings,
either in addition to, or in lieu of, forecasted weather factors
described in Q17? In what circumstances should DLR approaches
augment any sensor-based measurements of transmission line
parameters with weather forecasts (e.g., from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration or another weather service)? To what
extent are sensor-based measurements of line parameters useful in
determining longer-term forecasted line ratings (e.g., 2-7 days
ahead), rather than just instantaneous or very short-term
calculations of line ratings? How does the ability to forecast line
ratings compare between DLR approaches that rely primarily upon
sensor-based measurements of transmission line parameters and those
that rely upon weather data?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., LineVision, Comments, Docket No. RM20-16-000, at
2-3 (filed Mar. 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Q19) Should the Commission consider sensor-based DLR
requirements, such as those suggested by WATT? If yes, what level of
sensor coverage and performance requirements for such sensors should
be required? Please explain whether the Commission would need to
specify details like the types of sensors, how many are installed,
what they measure, and the quality of their data? Would a sensor-
focused requirement that specifies the types of technologies
potentially become stale as DLR technologies evolve? Why or why not?
    (Q20) In Order No. 881, the Commission adopted exceptions from
the AAR requirements to ensure the safety and reliability of the
transmission system and for transmission lines with transmission
line ratings that are not affected by ambient air temperature or
solar heating.\28\ Please explain whether the Commission should
adopt the same or similar exceptions for DLR requirements. Are there
any different/other exceptions from the application of DLR

requirements that the Commission should consider? If so, what are
these exceptions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Order No. 881, 177 FERC ] 61,179 at PP 227-228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Q21) In Order No. 881, the Commission established requirements
for AARs to be applied to a period not greater than one hour and for
AARs to be updated hourly.\29\ Is this time resolution and
calculation frequency also appropriate for DLR requirements or
should an alternative approach be considered? Why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. PP 162, 168. See also Pro Forma OATT attach. M, AAR
Definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Q22) How might the Commission consider potential requirements
for DLR implementation on transmission lines that are on the seam of
multiple transmission provider service territories? What additional
coordination between neighboring transmission owners and
transmission providers, if any, might be necessary?
    (Q23) In Order No. 881, the Commission required AARs to be used
for near-term transmission service, defined as transmission service
that ends not more than 10 days after the transmission service
request date (i.e., within the next 10 days).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Order No. 881, 177 FERC ] 61,179 at P 86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Within what timeframes should the Commission require
transmission providers to calculate transmission line ratings \31\
using DLRs (on transmission lines for which DLRs are required)? Does
this depend on which DLR approach (weather-based or line parameter-
based) is used for a particular DLR implementation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ We clarify that we use the phrasing ``require transmission
providers to calculate'' consistent with Order No. 881, in which the
Commission clarified ``that hourly (or more frequent) querying of
`look-up tables' or similar pre-calculated AAR databases will
satisfy the requirement that AARs be calculated at least each
hour.'' Id. PP 141-142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) For which transmission services (e.g., hourly point-to-point
transmission service, daily point-to-point transmission service,
weekly point-to-point transmission service, etc.) should the
Commission require the use of DLRs?
    (c) What data on the accuracy of forecasting wind speed, wind
direction, and/or other DLR variables would support the DLR
implementation timeframes and transmission services you recommend
above in (a) and (b)?
    (Q24) If the Commission were to decide that a requirement to
implement DLR is appropriate:
    (a) Should the Commission limit the number or proportion of
transmission elements that a transmission provider must implement
DLRs on at any one time, even if such elements otherwise met the
criteria for a DLR requirement? If so, should such a limit be based
on a number or percentage of transmission elements, and if so, what
number or percentage?
    (b) Should the relevant transmission element for such a limit be
considered individual transmission lines, or individual transmission
line-miles, or some other unit? Or, if such a limit is necessary,
would some other approach be better? Explain why you recommend any
particular approach.
    (c) Should such a limit be applied each time a transmission
provider is required to evaluate whether DLRs need to be implemented
on additional transmission lines (as contemplated below in Q29)?
    (Q25) If changed circumstances result in a transmission line no
longer meeting the DLR criteria, should the transmission provider
continue to be required to use the DLR to calculate the rating for
that line? Please explain why or why not.

E. Questions on Potential Timeframes for Implementing DLR Requirements

    14. In Order No. 881, the Commission required AARs to be
implemented no later than three years from the compliance filing due
date.\32\ The Commission explained that three years was consistent with
the implementation schedule most commonly suggested by transmission
owners for AAR implementation on priority transmission lines and that
three years would be sufficient time for transmission owners and
transmission providers to implement changes to their processes and
systems to comply with the requirements adopted in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. P 361.

    (Q26) What would be the appropriate amount of time, either from
your experience or by your estimation, necessary for each of the
following DLR implementation steps identified below?
    (a) Transmission line identification for DLR system application.
    (b) DLR System design.
    i. Field sensors and/or monitoring equipment design including
specification, procurement, and installation.
    ii. Communication infrastructure design, including
specification, procurement, and installation.
    iii. Process coordination between DLR field data and EMS,
including any line rating database upgrades or necessary
modifications.
    iv. DLR system integration and testing.
    (c) Any other steps needed to implement DLR system.
    (Q27) Can any of the steps identified in Q26, be completed
concurrently such that the total estimated DLR installation time
might be faster than the sum of each step? If so, which steps can be
completed concurrently? How might the implementation of Order No.
881 affect the time needed to implement DLR?
    (Q28) If, after the initial implementation of DLRs, the
transmission provider identifies additional transmission lines that
meet the DLR criteria, how long would it take to implement DLRs on
those additional transmission lines?
    (Q29) If the Commission required DLRs in certain situations
based on transmission line criteria, how frequently should
transmission owners consider whether additional lines might meet the
criteria for DLR implementation? That is, should the Commission
require a periodic restudy of transmission systems to determine if
additional transmission lines meet the criteria for DLR
implementation? Please explain why or why not. If, during a periodic
restudy, the transmission provider determines that additional lines
meet the criteria for DLR implementation, when should the Commission
require the transmission provider to implement DLRs on those
additional lines?

III. Comment Procedures

    15. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this NOI, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due April 25, 2022 and Reply Comments are due May 25,
2022. Comments must refer to Docket No. AD22-5-000 and must include the
commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and
their address.
    16. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned or picture format. Commenters filing
electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
    17. Those unable to file electronically may mail comments via the
U.S. Postal Service to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary
of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-
delivered comments or comments sent via any other carrier should be
delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    18. 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.

IV. Document Availability

    19. 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). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    20. 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.
    21. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: February 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03911 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1103]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-27-000]

Whitetail Solar 3, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On December 31, 2020, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL21-27-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Whitetail Solar
3, LLC's proposed rate schedule is unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory, or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Whitetail Solar
3, LLC, 173 FERC 61,288 (2020).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL21-27-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL21-27-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2020), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    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) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: December 31, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-29325 Filed 1-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 66970]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23523]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3326]

Biosimilar User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice
entitled ``Biosimilar User Fee Act; Public Meeting'' that appeared in
the Federal Register of September 19, 2016 (81 FR 64171). The document
announced a public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the
reauthorization of the Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) for fiscal years
(FYs) 2018 through 2022. The document was published with the incorrect
date of the closure of the docket and incorrect transcript information.
This document corrects those errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Monday, September
19, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-22442, the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 64172, in the first column, in the third sentence of the
DATES section, ``October 19, 2016'' is corrected to read ``October 28,
2016.''
    2. On page 64175, in the third column, the section ``Transcripts:
As soon as a transcript is available, FDA will post it at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/BiosimilarUserFeeActBsUFA/ucm461774.htm.'' is corrected to read ``Transcripts: Please be advised
that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/BiosimilarUserFeeActBsUFA/ucm461774.htm. It may be viewed at the
Division of Dockets Management, Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. A transcript will also be
available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a
Freedom of Information request. The Freedom of Information office
address is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov.''

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-23523 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58061-58063]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23976]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65338; File No. SR-OCC-2011-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Fitness Standards for
Directors, Clearing Members, and Others

September 14, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 31, 2011, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish fitness
standards for directors, clearing members, and others.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to facilitate
compliance by OCC with new core principles (``Core Principles'')
applicable to derivatives clearing organizations (``DCOs'') that are
set forth in the CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. In particular,
new DCO Core Principle O requires DCOs to establish fitness standards
for directors, clearing members and certain other individuals.
Background
    The Core Principles for DCOs are set forth in the CEA and consist
of a number of governing principles to which a DCO is required to
adhere. OCC is registered as a DCO with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (the ``CFTC'') under Section 5b of the CEA, and clears
commodity futures and commodity options traded on five futures
exchanges subject to the CFTC's jurisdiction. Title VII of the Dodd-
Frank Act amended the CEA to expand existing Core Principles and to add
certain new Core Principles. The applicable Dodd-Frank amendments to
the CEA become effective July 16, 2011. In January 2011, the CFTC
published proposed rules (the ``Proposed Rules'') to implement the Core
Principles, as amended and expanded by the Dodd Frank Act. The Proposed
Rules propose certain minimum criteria for complying with the Core
Principles, and propose certain clarifications of the more ambiguous
provisions of the Core Principles. The Proposed Rules have not been
adopted and will not be effective until 60 days following the date on
which the CFTC publishes final rules implementing the Core Principles.
    Core Principle O provides that each DCO must: (i) Establish
governance arrangements that are transparent (I) to fulfill public
interest requirements and (II) to permit the consideration of the views
of both owners and participants, and (ii) establish and enforce
appropriate fitness standards for (I) directors, (II) members of any
disciplinary committee, (III) members of the DCO, (IV) any other
individual or entity with direct access to the settlement or clearing
activities of the DCO, and (V) any party affiliated with any of the
above. OCC's existing governance arrangements satisfy the transparency
requirements of subparagraph (i) of Core Principle O. OCC is proposing
to adopt the Fitness Standards in order to assure compliance with
subparagraph (ii) of Core Principle O.
Description of Proposed Fitness Standards
    The proposed Fitness Standards, which are attached as Exhibit 5 to
this rule filing, comply with Core Principle O by establishing minimum
standards for directors and clearing members, as well as affiliates of
such directors and clearing members.\3\ The proposed Fitness Standards
are generally similar to fitness standards adopted by the Depository
Trust and Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to a conversation among OCC, the Commission and the
CFTC, the CFTC has indicated that the proposed rule change may
become effective after July 16, 2011 without impacting OCC's status
as a DCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fitness Standards incorporate the Proposed Rule's minimum
fitness standards for directors and clearing members, including the
basis for refusal to register a person under Section 8a(2) of the CEA
and, for directors only, the absence of a significant history of
serious disciplinary offences, such as those that would be
disqualifying under Section 1.63 of the CFTC's regulations. The Fitness
Standards do not establish criteria for members of the disciplinary
committee or for persons ``with direct access to the settlement or
clearing activities'' of OCC (``Access Persons''). In OCC's case, all
members of disciplinary committees\4\ are directors of the Corporation
and will be subject to the Fitness Standards as such. With respect to
Access Persons, neither the CEA nor the Proposed Rules provide any
explicit guidance as to the persons intended to be included in the
phrase ``any other individual or entity with direct access to the
settlement or clearing activities of the [DCO].'' Similarly, the term
``direct access'' is not defined in the CEA or the Proposed Rules.
However, Core Principle O is closely modeled on existing designated
contract market (``DCM'') Core Principle 14, which also requires that
fitness standards be established for directors, members and ``any other
persons with direct access to the facility.'' The CFTC has previously
issued guidance on DCM Core Principle 14 and interpreted ``persons with
direct access to the facility'' to include ``non-member market
participants who are not intermediated and do not have [member]
privileges, obligations, responsibilities or disciplinary authority.''
This interpretation suggests that ``access'' is intended to mean the
type of access that a member would have. OCC believes that by analogy
``persons with direct access to the settlement or clearing activities''
of a DCO, as used in Core Principle O, is intended to refer to persons
with access to submit transactions for clearing or to give instructions
to OCC regarding accounts or transactions or otherwise have access to
the clearing system in a manner similar to the access that a Clearing
Member would have. OCC also does not read ``any other individual or
entity with direct access to the settlement or clearing activities of
the [DCO]'' to include OCC employees or service providers such as
settlement banks. Accordingly, OCC believes that there are presently no
persons with ``direct access'' to the settlement and clearing
activities of OCC other than clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC has no standing disciplinary committee. Disciplinary
committees are formed on an ad hoc basis. See OCC Rule 1202(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed By-Law Changes
    Article III (Board of Directors) and Article V (Clearing Members)
set forth qualifications for directors and clearing members,
respectively. The Interpretations and Policies under the appropriate
sections of both Articles are being amended to incorporate the
applicable Fitness Standards by reference.
    OCC believes that the proposed changes to its By-Laws and Rules are
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the
Exchange Act, because they are designed to permit OCC to perform
clearing services for products that are subject to the jurisdiction of
the CFTC without adversely affecting OCC's obligations with respect to
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions or the protection of securities investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with any rules
of OCC.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 Commissions Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number SR-OCC-2011-12 on the
subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2011-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Commission's 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web
site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_11_12.pdf.
    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-OCC-2011-12
and should be submitted on or before October 11, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23976 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41613-41614]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2489-049]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice Soliciting Scoping
Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor.
    b. Project No.: P-2489-049.
    c. Date Filed: October 31, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP).
    e. Name of Project: Cavendish Hydroelectric Project (Cavendish
Project or project).
    f. Location: On the Black River, in the town of Cavendish, in
Windsor County, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: John Tedesco, Green Mountain Power
Corporation, 2152 Post Road, Rutland, VT 05701;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Adam Peer at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: July 21, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
MD 20852. All filings must clearly identify the following on the first
page: Cavendish Hydroelectric Project (P-2489-049).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The existing Cavendish Project consists of: (1) a 3,000 foot-
long, 10-acre impoundment with a gross storage capacity of 18.4-acre-
feet at a normal water surface elevation of 884.13 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; (2) a 111-foot-long concrete gravity
dam that consists of: (a) a 90-foot-long by 25-foot-high north spillway
section topped with a 6-foot-high inflatable flashboard system; and (b)
a 21-foot-long by 6-foot-high south spillway section topped with 2.5-
foot-high steel flashboards; (3) an 18-inch wide downstream fish
passage chute located on the north side of the spillway; (4) a concrete
intake structure equipped with a mechanically operated headgate, and a
trash rack with 2-inch clear bar spacing; (5) a 178-foot-long concrete
and rock tunnel that carries water from the intake to a penstock; (6) a
6-foot-diameter, 1,090-foot-long steel penstock; (7) a 64-foot-long by
34-foot-wide powerhouse containing three turbine-generator units with a
combined capacity of 1.44 megawatts; (8) a 100-foot-long transmission
line that runs from the powerhouse to a substation within the project
boundary; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The project creates a 1,570-
foot-long bypassed reach of the Black River.
    The current license requires GMP to: (1) operate the project in
run-of-river mode; (2) maintain the impoundment water level no lower
than 6 inches below the crest of the flashboards; (3) release a
continuous minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the
bypassed reach; and (4) release overall downstream flows of at least 42
cfs from June 1 to September 30, at least 83 cfs from October 1 to
March 31, and at least 332 cfs from April 1 to May 31 when refilling
the impoundment after project maintenance or flashboard installation.
If inflows are insufficient to meet the downstream flows during
impoundment refill, GMP is required to release 90 percent of
instantaneous inflow through the turbines. The project generates about
4,864 megawatt-hours annually.
    GMP proposes to: (1) continue operating the project in run-of-river
mode; (2) maintain a stable impoundment water level at the top of the
flashboard crest; (3) continue releasing a continuous minimum flow of
10 cfs to the bypassed reach; and (4) release 90 percent of
instantaneous inflow through the turbines at all times when refilling
the impoundment.
    m. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the application can be
viewed on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the project's docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected].
    You may also register at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected].
    n. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    o. Scoping Process
    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Commission staff intends to prepare either an environmental assessment
(EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) (collectively referred
to as the ``NEPA document'') that describes and evaluates the probable
effects, including an assessment of the site-specific and cumulative
effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives. The
Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of
analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of
whether the Commission issues an EA or an EIS. At this time, we do not
anticipate holding an on-site scoping meeting.

Instead, we are soliciting written comments and suggestions on the
preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the NEPA
document, as described in scoping document 1 (SD1), issued June 21,
2023.
    Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in
the NEPA document were distributed to the parties on the Commission's
mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 21, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13603 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10918-10920]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0002]

Walking and Working Surfaces Standard for General Industry;
Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of
the Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the Walking and
Working Surfaces Standard for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910,
subpart D).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0002,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2013-0002) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Theda Kenney at the
address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the extent possible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C 657).
    The collections of information contained in the Walking and Working
Surfaces Standard are necessary to protect workers from the collapse of
overloaded floors, outrigger scaffolds, and failure of defective
portable metal ladders. The following describes the information
collection requirements in subpart D:
    Paragraph 1910.22(d)(1) requires that in every building or other
structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial,
or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official shall
be marked on plates of approved design which shall be supplied and
securely affixed by the owner of the building, or his duly authorized
agent, in a conspicuous place in each space to which they relate. Such
plates shall not be removed or defaced but, if lost, removed, or
defaced, shall be replaced by the owner or his agent.
    Under paragraph 1910.26(c)(2)(vii), portable metal ladders having
defects are to be marked and taken out of service until repaired by
either the maintenance department or the manufacturer.
    Paragraph 1910.28(e)(3) specifies that unless outrigger scaffolds
are designed by a licensed professional engineer, they shall be
constructed and erected in accordance with table D-16 of this section.
A copy of the detailed drawings and specifications showing the sizes
and spacing of members shall be kept on the job.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Walking and Working Surfaces
Standard for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart D). OSHA is
proposing to retain the burden hours in the currently approved
information collection request. The Agency will summarize the comments
submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in
the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Walking and Working Surfaces for General Industry (29 CFR
1910, subpart D).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0199.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 75,408.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Ranges from three minutes (.05 hour) to
mark ladders with a tag or other means to 20 minutes (0.33 hours) to
acquire a replacement sign and to post it.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,125 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0002). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using
the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 25, 2016.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2016-04524 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18544-18545]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-107-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on March 14, 2014, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221, filed in Docket No. CP14-107-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210 and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and National
Fuel's blanket certificate authorized in Docket No. CP83-4-000.
National Fuel seeks authorization to construct approximately 4.72 miles
of 16-inch and 20-inch diameter pipelines, offset approximately 25-feet
from its existing Line KNY and KM3 pipelines, in Erie and Cattaraugus
Counties, New York. National Fuel proposes to

abandon in place the existing 4.72 miles of 20-inch, 1910-1962 vintage
bare steel pipe of Lines KNY and KM3, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open for
public inspection.
    Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to
Kenneth E. Webster, Attorney for National Fuel, 6363 Main Street,
Williamsville, New York 14221 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 24, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07304 Filed 4-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P