UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 9, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-16785

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Amerijet International, Inc.    filed   12/22/03  for:

XX Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a
point or points in the United States and a point or points in Nicaragua.
 Amerijet states that it intends to serve the new markets in combination
with and supported by its other services.

Applicant rep:   John L. Richardson,<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:  Sylvia
Moore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   January 9, 2004, through
January 9, 2006

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and

Nicaragua.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in award of
the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon Amerijet rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Amerijet notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and

(b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry
route rights that are included in Amerijet's authority by virtue of the
route integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being

2

used by Amerijet, the holding of such authority by route integration
will not be considered as providing any preference for Amerijet in a
competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s)
should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
______________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(n) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										08/2003

 Amerijet initially intends to provide service between Fort Lauderdale
and Miami, on the one hand, and Managua, Nicaragua, on the other.

 By letter dated December 30, 2003, the carrier clarified that it was
asking to integrate the Nicaragua authority with its existing authority.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 315-316]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66063; File No. SR-DTC-2011-13]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Revise Fees for Equity and Debt Derivatives

December 28, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4\2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given that
on December 15, 2011, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II, which Items have been
prepared primarily by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder
so that the proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the
Commission.\3\ 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)(ii) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would revise fees for equity and debt
derivatives.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    There are certain types of equity and debt derivatives, as they are
classified at DTC, that represent debt of an issuer whose coupon and
yield are derived from the performance of an underlying stock, basket
of stock, commodity or other index. Due to the unique nature of equity
and debt derivatives, as opposed to the typical common stock or
corporate bond (which are considered ``Basic'' at DTC), DTC currently
assesses Participants a ``Complex Eligibility Fee'' as part of the DTC
eligibility process.\5\ As more fully described below, the purpose of
this rule change is to provide a reduction in the complex eligibility
processing fee on equity and debt derivatives based on volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DTC's eligibility process typically involves a legal review
of registration exemptions and evaluation of asset servicing
requirements that are not standardized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent demand has changed the dynamics of the market for equity and
debt derivatives. The asset servicing set-up is becoming more
standardized as issuers are limiting the corporate action variations in
order to realize operational efficiencies through economies of scale.
For example, some issuers are choosing two or three basic payment
structures with similar call features for all the equity or debt
derivatives they issue. The ability to issue these products under a
``program-like'' structure has created a variation of a debt and equity
derivative that requires an eligibility review more similar to that of
products currently considered ``Basic'' at DTC.

This is because the legal requirements of the subsequent issuances
remain unchanged from the base prospectus and the asset servicing
requirements generally follow a few basic structures. As such, DTC has
proposed to adjust its Fee Schedule to reflect the following tiered
pricing:
    (i) A Participant closing 15 or more equity or debt derivatives in
a day will be assessed the current ``Complex Eligibility Fee'' ($750)
for the first 14 issuances.
    (ii) Beginning with the 15th issuance, the fee will be reduced to
the current ``Basic Eligibility Fee'' ($350 or $500 depending on single
versus multi CUSIP).
    Issuances that contain the option to receive the underlying stock
at maturity will not qualify for the tiered pricing and will continue
to be assessed the ``Complex Eligibility Fee'' because they still
require a manually intensive set-up process.
    The proposed fee revisions are consistent with DTC's overall
pricing philosophy to align service fees with underlying costs,
discourage manual and exception processing, and encourage
immobilization and dematerialization of securities. DTC intends for
these fee adjustments to be effective January 2, 2012.
    DTC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because it would clarify and
update DTC's fee schedule to facilitate the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among DTC's participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC 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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received by DTC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\
thereunder because it is establishing or changing a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member. At any time within sixty days of
the filing of such rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2011-13 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-DTC-2011-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the 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 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at DTC's principal office and on DTC's Web site
at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2011/dtc/SR-DTC-2011-13.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-DTC-2011-13 and
should be submitted on or before January 25, 2012.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-33716 Filed 1-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


systems, and applications it entails) and how it is consistent with the
policy and one or more of the goals Congress set forth in section 1301
of EISA. In section 1301 of EISA, Congress made clear that ``it is the
policy of the United States to support the modernization of the
Nation's electricity transmission and distribution system to maintain
reliable and secure electricity infrastructure that can meet future
demand growth'' and to achieve certain goals, ``which together
characterize a Smart Grid.'' \178\ Those goals include increased use of
digital information and controls technology to improve reliability,
security, and efficiency of the electric grid, dynamic optimization of
grid operations and resources, with full cybersecurity, and deployment
and integration of distributed resources and generation, including
renewable resources, demand side resources and energy efficiency
resources. This threshold showing was implicit in the Proposed Policy
Statement, but in light of many comments we received, we now state it
explicitly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ EISA section 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. In order to make the second showing, an applicant must
describe how its proposed deployment of smart grid equipment will
maintain compliance with Commission-approved Reliability Standards,
such as the CIPS Reliability Standards, during and after the
installation and activation of smart grid technologies so the
reliability and cyber security of the bulk-power system will not be
jeopardized. An applicant must also address: (1) The integrity of data
communicated (whether the data is correct), (2) the authentication of
the communications (whether the communication is between the intended
smart grid device and an authorized device or person), (3) the
prevention of unauthorized modifications to smart grid devices and the
logging of all modifications made, (4) the physical protection of smart
grid devices, and (5) the potential impact of unauthorized use of these
smart grid devices on the bulk-power system.
    125. To make the third showing concerning potential stranded smart
grid investment, applicants must show how they have relied to the
greatest extent practical on existing, widely adopted and open \179\
interoperability standards; and where feasible, relied on systems and
firmware that can be securely upgraded readily and quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ An open architecture is publicly known, so any and all
vendors can build hardware or software that fits within that
architecture, and the architecture stands outside the control of any
single individual or group of vendors. In contrast, a closed
architecture is vendor-specific and proprietary, and blocks other
vendors from adoption. An open architecture encourages multi-vendor
competition because every vendor has the opportunity to build
interchangeable hardware or software that works with other elements
within the system. See Gridwise Architecture Council Decision-
Maker's Interoperability Checklist Draft Version 1.0, http://
www.gridwiseac.org/pdfs/gwac_decisionmakerchecklist.pdf. We note
that Congress recently made utilization of open protocols and
standards, if available and appropriate, a condition of receiving
funding from the Department of Energy for demonstration projects and
grants pursuant to EISA section 1304 and 1306. See ARRA section
405(3) and 405(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. Finally, to make the showing concerning the sharing of
information, an applicant must agree to share with the Department of
Energy Smart Grid Clearinghouse the same information required by the
Department of Energy for its grant program. While in the Proposed
Policy Statement the Commission initially proposed seven specific
categories of information to be shared, modeled on a similar proposal
made to the Department of Energy by the NARUC/FERC Smart Grid
Collaborative, the Department of Energy has now released its final
information sharing requirements and we will rely on those requirements
instead.
    127. Some commenters argue that these showings represent a
departure from traditional ratemaking practice. We disagree. These
showings do not replace the Commission's existing demonstrations, but
supplement them. The supplemental information is needed in this case to
assure the Commission that recovery of investments in these new
technologies, in some cases still experimental, are serving the
interests of consumers while advancing the effort to create a smart
grid. Further, although the Commission generally does not allow the
recovery of new costs outside a rate case, we will do so for smart grid
costs as explained further below, and this fact alone creates a need
for additional filing requirements designed for just these costs. Here
we are allowing cost recovery for jurisdictional smart grid costs based
on traditional standards of review with an added showing that the
technologies will not adversely affect the security and reliability of
the grid, have minimized potential stranded investment related to
consistency with interoperability standards as they are fully developed
over time, and assist in providing information for future projects.
Such considerations are fully consistent with the ``used and useful''
standard, and are the proper determinations for the Commission to make
when considering whether a smart grid cost is just and reasonable in
this interim period before a substantial body of relevant
interoperability standards are adopted through Commission rulemaking.
    128. These considerations do not constitute automatic rate recovery
for smart grid projects, as some commenters have suggested. The
Commission has laid out specific showings that must be made, in
addition to normal rate filing requirements, for rate recovery for a
smart grid project to be approved. The burden is on the applicant to
make these showings.
    129. The Commission rejects the arguments that a formal cost/
benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis should be required in addition
to these three filing requirements. Under section 205 of the FPA, the
Commission already considers whether rates are just and reasonable and
not unduly discriminatory. Formal quantitative analyses typically
contain some areas with highly subjective benefits that could lead to
protracted debate between each side's experts and increase the cost of
litigation. Further, a cost-benefit analysis would be particularly
infeasible in this instance. For example, if the benefits of smart grid
deployment were to include enhanced ability to accommodate changes in
generation mix, including heavier reliance on renewable generation,
then the costs of failure to deploy such technology could potentially
include such hard-to-quantify costs as the results of global climate
change. Such cost estimates will be highly dependent on a broad range
of assumptions and would likely be highly contentious in every case.
Accordingly, the value of such a requirement would be questionable. In
any event, intervenors in rate proceedings can and do raise the issue
of whether utility investments

were prudently made in light of their costs and they may continue to do
so.
    130. Several commenters state that the Commission should identify
what devices will be eligible for smart grid rate recovery. The
Commission will not attempt to list all the particular facilities,
equipment, or devices that are eligible or ineligible. In response to
APPA and others, and as noted above, rate recovery will apply only to
smart grid costs within the Commission's FPA jurisdiction. EISA does
not alter the FPA's jurisdictional boundaries between Federal and State
regulation over the rates, terms, and conditions of transmission
service and sales of electricity.
3. Incentives Under the Interim Rate Policy
    131. In its Proposed Policy Statement the Commission proposed
several incentive rate treatments for smart grid costs. These rate
treatments are meant to encourage the adoption of and investment in
smart grid technologies.
a. Single Issue Ratemaking
    132. As part of the Interim Rate Policy, the Commission proposed
that jurisdictional entities should be able to recover costs for used
and useful smart grid facilities on a single issue basis. That is,
entities would be able to recover the cost of smart grid investments
without having to open their entire rate base to Commission review.
Comments
    133. Some commenters \180\ support the Commission's proposal to
permit single issue rate filings for qualifying smart grid investments.
NYISO notes that allowing jurisdictional transmission owners to recover
the cost of investment in new controls and communication devices may
assist in stimulating needed investment.\181\ Midwest ISO Transmission
Owners state that such a policy will encourage investment because it
allows transmission owners to invest in smart grid equipment without
running the risk that other aspects of their system-wide rates will
become subject to review and possible alteration.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ SDG&E Comments at 24-25, Indianapolis P&L Comments at 3-4,
Black Hills Corp. Comments at 4, Midwest ISO Transmission Owners
Comments at 3-7, and Allegheny Companies Comments at 8.
    \181\ NYISO Comments at 12.
    \182\ Midwest ISO Transmission Owners Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. Several commenters argue against the proposed single issue
ratemaking, and state that the Commission should adhere to traditional
ratemaking practices.\183\ ELCON states that such cost recovery is
premature, given unresolved technical issues.\184\ APPA argues that
single issue ratemaking for smart grid technology could lead to an
over-recovery of costs, and is part of a trend in which the Commission
overlooks its duty to insure just and reasonable rates in the name of
current policy goals.\185\ Commenters also argue against treating
approved smart grid technologies as used and useful.\186\ Citizens
Coalition opposes any special rate treatment for smart grid equipment,
as does ELCON for the same reasons that it opposes finalization of the
Interim Rate Policy generally.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ NRECA Comments at 11-13, Maryland Counsel Comments at 2,
4-5, Ohio Partners Comments at 9-10, ELCON Comments at 9-10, and
Citizens Coalition Comments at 12-14.
    \184\ ELCON Comments at 9-10.
    \185\ APPA Comments at 17-18.
    \186\ NRECA Comments at 11-13, Maryland Counsel Comments at 4,
and Ohio Partners at 9-10.
    \187\ Citizens Coalition Comments at 14 and ELCON Comments at
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    135. EEI also argues that for purposes of smart grid-related single
issue rate filings, the Commission should consider providing waiver of
the full financial data requirements in the Commission's regulations.
In particular, EEI argues that Period I data may be adequate for
determining whether such rates are just and reasonable and the
otherwise required Period II data may not be needed.
Commission Determination
    136. The Commission will allow single issue rate treatment for the
recovery of costs associated with smart grid investments as part of its
Interim Rate Policy. Although the Commission generally does not allow
the recovery of new costs outside a rate case that considers all costs,
the Commission has entertained exceptions for special cases. For
example, in implementing FPA section 219, as enacted in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the Commission has stated that it would allow
single issue rate treatment for new transmission projects.\188\
Furthermore, such rate treatment is not unheard of in other
jurisdictions; retail rates may include surcharges to the base rates in
order to recover unusual, or ``single issue,'' costs.\189\ Here the
Commission will allow single issue rate treatment in response to a
pressing need for the development of new and innovative smart grid
capabilities that will be needed by the electric system, and in
response to a statutory directive to support the modernization of the
electric grid. This will in no way affect the ability of customers to
file a complaint pursuant to section 206 of the FPA if they believe
that the ultimate rate charged by the public utility is no longer just
and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing Reform,
Order No. 679, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,222, at P 191 (2006), order
on reh'g, Order No. 679-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,236 (2006),
order on reh'g, 119 FERC ] 61,062 (2007).
    \189\ See, e.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. section 66-117(f) (2009), Pa.
Pub. Util. Code section 2804(16)(ii) (2009) and WUTC v. Puget Sound
Energy, Inc., Docket Nos. UE-011570 and UG-011571, at P 25 and 27
(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. As to EEI's request for clarification regarding waiver of the
full financial data requirements in the Commission's regulations, the
Commission already permits applicants to seek such waiver on a case-by-
case basis. On the record before us, we see no need for a blanket
waiver. Applicants seeking such a waiver must retain the burden for
supporting the waiver.
b. Recovery of Stranded Costs for Legacy Systems
    138. The Commission also proposed to permit applicants to seek
recovery of the otherwise stranded costs of legacy systems that are to
be replaced by smart grid equipment. The Commission stated that an
appropriate plan for the staged deployment of smart grid equipment,
which could include appropriate upgrades to legacy systems where
technically feasible and cost-effective, could help minimize the
stranding of unamortized costs of legacy systems. The Commission
therefore proposed that any request to recover stranded legacy system
costs must demonstrate that such a migration plan has been developed.
Comments
    139. AARP argues that the proposed stranded cost policies for
legacy systems are unreasonable because they may present significant
cost risk exposure to consumers. AARP recommends that the Commission
transfer at least some portion of the risks of stranded costs from
ratepayers to shareholders.\190\ APPA states that retail costs,
including stranded costs, should not be reflected in wholesale rates.
APPA also argues that applicants should be required to make every
effort to minimize the stranding of legacy costs through phased
integration strategies.\191\ Citizens Coalition opposes any recovery of
the stranded legacy costs of legacy systems, stating that past stranded
cost proceedings cost consumers billions of dollars.\192\ It argues
that smart grid advocates should reimburse utilities and

their customers for such costs if they wish to replace such systems
prematurely. ELCON also opposes permitting recovery of the stranded
cost of legacy systems.\193\ NRECA argues that if the Commission's
discussion of permitting applicants to seek stranded cost recovery was
meant to change existing ratemaking policies, the Commission must
provide more justification for doing so and detailed criteria for
evaluating such applications.\194\ Additionally, several commenters
argue that every effort should be made to minimize the stranding of
legacy costs.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ AARP Comments at 12-13.
    \191\ APPA Comments at 20.
    \192\ Citizens Coalition Comments at 9, 14.
    \193\ ELCON Comments at 13.
    \194\ NRECA Comments at 14-15.
    \195\ Ohio Partners Comments at 11, National Grid Comments at 7,
and Maryland Counsel Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. Other commenters support the Commission's proposals with
respect to recovery of the stranded investment in legacy systems to be
replaced by smart grid equipment, including the proposals meant to
minimize such stranded costs.\196\ FirstEnergy also proposes that the
Commission consider permitting accelerated depreciation or amortization
for legacy systems to be replaced with smart grid equipment.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ SDG&E Comments at 26, FirstEnergy Comments at 10, Midwest
ISO Transmission Owners Comments at 9-11, PSEG Companies Comments at
8, and Black Hills Corp. Comments at 4.
    \197\ First Energy Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    141. As part of the Interim Rate Policy, the Commission will allow
single issue rate treatment of otherwise stranded costs for
jurisdictional legacy systems being replaced by jurisdictional smart
grid equipment, provided that proposals to recover these costs are
supported by an equipment migration plan that minimizes the stranding
of unamortized costs of legacy systems. Elsewhere in this document, the
Commission discusses several major potential challenges to the
operation of the bulk-power system, and the smart grid capabilities
that could help address those challenges. We view these challenges as
potentially serious enough to justify making the development of these
smart grid capabilities a high priority. Accordingly, if developing
these capabilities requires the early replacement of some legacy
equipment, we would view that as a strong argument for doing so, and
would not necessarily render these previously-approved investments
imprudent.
c. Additional Incentive Rate Treatments
    142. The Commission also stated that it will entertain requests for
rate treatments such as accelerated depreciation and abandonment
authority (whereby an applicant is assured of recovery of abandoned
plant costs if the project is abandoned for reasons outside the control
of the public utility) specifically tied to smart grid deployments
under our FPA section 205 authority. The Commission stated that any
requests for such rate treatment for smart grid costs would need to
address all of the requirements for rate recovery and make the showings
described in FPA section 205. The Commission also stated that it would
consider applying these rate treatments to the portion of a smart grid
pilot or demonstration project's cost that is not already paid for by
Department of Energy funds, such as those authorized by EISA sections
1304 and 1306.\198\ The Commission further stated that to the extent
that such showings are made as discussed, it proposed to consider
permitting abandonment authority to apply to any smart grid investments
that, despite reasonable efforts, could not be upgraded and must
ultimately be replaced if found to conflict with the final standards
approved in the Institute's standards development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ To be codified at 42 U.S.C. 17384 and 17386.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    143. SDG&E supports the Commission's incentive proposals,
particularly as to accelerated depreciation and the opportunity to
recover the costs of abandoned plant. However, SDG&E seeks
clarification that the Commission will entertain rate requests for
abandoned plant costs over and above undepreciated capital costs,
including other costs associated with abandoned facilities such as
costs of early or premature contract termination.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ SDG&E Comments at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. In contrast, AARP urges caution regarding incentives for smart
grid equipment before the adoption of final interoperability standards
and proposes that requests for such incentives should be required to
document the costs and benefits that will ultimately be borne by retail
consumers. As with cost recovery generally, AARP argues that the
Commission should identify specific investments, devices, or other
systems that would or could be eligible for incentive treatment under
this proposed policy. AARP argues that, at a minimum, requests for
incentive treatment should be required to document the actual and
improved reliability benefits from such investments and the applicant
should bear all of the risk that those benefits will actually occur.
Citizens Coalition opposes any special rate treatment for smart grid
equipment, as does ELCON for the same reasons that it opposes
finalization of the Interim Rate Policy generally.\200\ NRECA states
that if the Commission's discussion of permitting applicants to seek
rate treatments such as accelerated depreciation and abandonment
authority was meant to change existing ratemaking policies, the
Commission must provide more justification for doing so and detailed
criteria for evaluating such applications.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Citizens Coalition Comments at 14 and ELCON Comments at
13.
    \201\ NRECA Comments at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. Massachusetts Attorney General urges the Commission to
consider prohibiting, or at least significantly limiting, applicants'
ability to recover return on equity incentive adders for smart grid
investments. It argues that the potential risks associated with smart
grid investments are minimal compared to large-scale transmission
projects, especially in light of Department of Energy support through
stimulus funding.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Massachusetts Attorney General Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    146. In contrast, Allegheny Companies recommend that three
additional rate treatments be permitted: incentive return on equity,
recovery of a return on 100 percent of construction work in progress,
and the expensing of pre-commercial costs.\203\ Allegheny Companies
also support the proposals regarding accelerated depreciation and
abandonment but request that applicants be permitted to demonstrate on
a case-by-case basis significantly shorter depreciable lives for early
smart grid investments without needing to demonstrate that such shorter
lives are required for cash flow purposes.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Allegheny Companies Comments at 6-7.
    \204\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    147. Valley Group asserts that real-time transmission ratings could
reduce congestion cost by enabling more of the existing capacity of
transmission facilities to be used safely, and proposes a new rate
incentive tied to investment associated with enabling real-time
transmission ratings.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Valley Group Comments at 2, 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    148. Finally, ITC Companies and EEI request clarification regarding
the interplay between Order No. 679 and the incentive rate treatments
discussed in the Interim Rate Policy. ITC Companies request that the
Commission clarify that smart grid technologies applicable to the
transmission system are considered advanced transmission

technologies eligible for transmission rate incentives under Order No.
679.\206\ EEI asks the Commission to clarify whether the Commission
will differentiate between devices that qualify for advanced technology
incentives under Order No. 679 and those that qualify under the Interim
Rate Policy; or whether the same technology may qualify for either
incentive. EEI also requests that the Commission clarify whether
projects receiving treatment under the Interim Rate Policy preclude
smart grid projects from receiving incentives under Order No. 679.\207\
AARP argues that such single issue rate filings should be required to
adhere to the Commission's regulations and conform to procedures
enacted under FPA section 219.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ ITC Companies Comments at 8-10.
    \207\ EEI Comments at 15.
    \208\ AARP Comments at 13-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    149. The Commission will permit utilities to request accelerated
depreciation and abandonment authority under the terms of its Interim
Rate Policy under FPA section 205. As discussed elsewhere in this
Policy Statement, smart grid investment can help address major
challenges facing the bulk-power system. However, as with any section
205 filing or petition for declaratory order, the Commission will make
the rate determination based on the specific facts and circumstances
presented, including the relationship to other incentives, if any.
4. Potential Interplay With Department of Energy Funding Grants
    150. Subsequent to the Commission's issuance of the Proposed Policy
Statement, the Department of Energy announced two smart grid funding
opportunities for up to fifty percent of the costs of certain smart
grid projects. In addition, the Department of Energy planned to require
applicants to identify the source of non-Department of Energy funds,
along with some evidence as to the certainty of these funds.
    151. Given that applicants for these programs might include
jurisdictional public utilities that seek rate recovery through
Commission-jurisdictional rates for the non-Department of Energy
portion of funds for transmission-related projects, the Commission
sought supplemental comments on the matter. The Commission received 16
supplemental comments.
Comments
    152. There are two major themes in the supplemental comments.
First, the investor-owned electric industry is supportive of the
Commission's proposal to conditionally approve rate adjustments on
smart grid projects, including those eligible for Department of Energy
funding. EEI is fully supportive of the Commission's smart grid Interim
Rate Policy proposal, stating that it provides certainty and incentives
for utilities to aggressively pursue Department of Energy funding.\209\
Without interim rate policies, utilities may be less willing or unable
to pursue Department of Energy funding. EEI encourages the Commission
to issue its Interim Rate Policy before the Department's release of its
June 17, 2009 final funding opportunity documents, and certainly prior
to the July 29 project submission deadline. EEI supports rate recovery
of upgrades to legacy systems and rate recovery of stranded costs
resulting from smart grid upgrades.\210\ EEI also states that expedited
rate adjustments can be accomplished through formula rates.\211\ SDG&E,
PSEG, PG&E, and the New York Transmission Owners all filed comments in
support of the Commission's Interim Rate Policy proposals.\212\ None of
the Investor Owned Utility commenters suggests that the Commission
adopt a separate rate policy for investments supported by Department of
Energy funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ EEI Supplemental Comments at 4-5.
    \210\ Id. at 6.
    \211\ Id.
    \212\ SDGE Supplemental Comments at 1-2, PSEG Supplemental
Comments at 1-2, PGE Supplemental Comments at 1, and NYISO
Supplemental Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    153. Second, the public power sector, energy consumer
representatives, and state regulatory commissions oppose or have
serious reservations about the Commission's policy proposal. NRECA and
ELCON continue to oppose the Commission's Interim Rate Policy proposal
generally. NRECA stresses that the Commission should strictly adhere to
the just and reasonable requirements of the FPA.\213\ NRECA's position
is that rate adjustments related to smart grid investments can be
processed expeditiously while still following requirements prescribed
in the FPA. NRECA also states that cost recovery assurance for
facilities not under construction is beyond the Commission's
authority.\214\ NRECA further states that a careful reading of the
Department of Energy draft funding opportunity announcement does not
condition grant award upon assurance of recovery of smart grid
facilities in rates.\215\ Similarly, ELCON states the Commission should
proceed carefully and focus on its statutory obligation that utility
costs are prudently incurred, and used and useful.\216\ ELCON also
reaffirms its opposition to the Commission's proposed Interim Rate
Policy and states that special rate treatment for smart grid
investments is contrary to the FPA.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ NRECA Supplemental Comments at 4-5.
    \214\ Id. at 10-11.
    \215\ Id. at 8-9.
    \216\ ELCON Supplemental Comments at 3.
    \217\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    154. NARUC asserts, as does NRECA, that many if not most of the
grant projects will occur on the distribution-retail side of the
grid.\218\ In consequence, the Commission should not provide funding
guarantees for that portion of smart grid projects not covered by
Department of Energy grants; State commissions must have the
opportunity to review these projects. The Maryland Commission comments
mirror NARUC's and NRECA's, opposing the Interim Rate Proposal
generally and specifically opposing conditional rate recovery of
projects it considers to be State jurisdictional.\219\ The California
Commission provided a copy of an order describing how it will review
smart grid projects eligible for Department of Energy funds.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ NARUC Supplemental Comments at 1.
    \219\ Maryland Commission Supplemental Comments at 1-2.
    \220\ CPUC Supplemental Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    155. AARP comments, while not explicitly opposing the Commission's
Interim Rate Proposal, say that additional clarity should be provided
to the smart grid cost approval process, including conducting a
preliminary review of smart grid grant applications to determine
whether they are complete.\221\ Similarly, the Massachusetts Attorney
General stresses that the Commission should have a project approval and
monitoring process that focuses on cost containment.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ AARP Supplemental Comments at 1-3.
    \222\ Massachusetts Commission Supplemental Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    156. Having considered the supplemental comments, the Commission
sees no need for special procedures for rate recovery filings for
projects that also receive Department of Energy grant funding. The
Department of Energy does not require an assurance of rate recovery as
a condition for grant funding. In fact, the most recent version of the
Department of Energy's Smart Grid Grant Program states that applicants
that do not yet have regulatory approval are eligible to

receive an award.\223\ The more general concerns expressed by the
commenters regarding the Interim Rate Policy have been addressed in
previous sections of this Policy Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ See generally Recovery Act Smart Grid Grant Investment
Program, http://www.grants.gov/search/
search.do;jsessionid=fvXjKDLQNQG8kgxwx65nJs4rYhGgThcL9t7KzGZCkqFXSRpG
pn9z!1215949849?oppId=46833&flag2006=false&mode=VIEW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Document Availability

    157. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    158. 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.
    159. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Online Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676)
or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IV. Information Collection Statement

    160. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5 CFR
1320.11 require that it approve certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon
approval of a collection of information, OMB assigns an OMB control
number and an expiration date. Entities subject to the filing
requirements of the Interim Rate Policy will not be penalized for
failing to respond to this collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
    161. The Interim Rate Policy may affect the following existing data
collection: Electric Rate Schedule and Tariff Filings (FERC-516) OMB
Control No. 1902-0096.
    162. The following burden estimate is based on the projected costs
for the industry to implement revisions to satisfy the requirements of
the Interim Rate Policy if and when rate recovery is sought under that
policy:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of
             Data collection                  Number of       responses per       Hours per      Total number of
                                             respondents       respondent         response            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-516................................               116                 1                15              1740
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................  ................  ................  ................              1740
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection
    (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 1740
    163. Information Collection Costs: The Commission projects the
average annualized cost for all respondents to be the following: \224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ The total annualized costs for the information collection
is $261,000. This number is reached by multiplying the total hours
to prepare responses (1740 hours) by an hourly wage estimate of $150
(a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and support
staff rates, $90+$35+$25). $261,000 = $150 x 1740.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               FERC-516
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annualized Costs.....................................     $261,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. The Commission sought comments on the Interim Rate Policy,
among other things, in the Proposed Policy Statement. No comments were
filed relating to the burden of reporting or complying with the
requirements for seeking rate recovery pursuant to the Interim Rate
Policy.
    165. The Commission's Interim Rate Policy adopted herein is
necessary to encourage the near-term deployment of smart grid systems
capable of addressing upcoming challenges to the operation of the bulk-
power system. Requiring the information specified in the Interim Rate
Policy will encourage this near-term deployment while appropriately
protecting customers from stranded costs and the electric system from
potential cybersecurity threats.
    166. These requirements conform to the Commission's goal for
efficient information collection, communication, and management within
the electric power industry. The Commission has assured itself, by
means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support
for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.
    167. OMB regulations \225\ require it to approve information
collection requirements imposed by an agency. The Commission is
submitting notification of the Interim Rate Policy to OMB. These
information collections are voluntary and apply only to the extent that
an entity seeks to benefit from the Interim Rate Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Electric Rate Schedule and Tariff Filings (FERC-516).
    Action: Proposed collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
    Frequency of Responses: Estimated to be one time per respondent.
The Interim Rate Policy will be in effect until relevant
interoperability standards have been adopted through Commission
rulemaking as provided by the EISA.
    Necessity of the Information: The Interim Rate Policy will
encourage near-term deployment of smart grid systems capable of helping
to address the upcoming challenges to the operation of the bulk-power
system associated with the EISA. The information to be collected is
necessary to protect customers from stranded costs and the electric
system from potential cybersecurity threats. The Commission will use
the information in rate proceedings to review rate and tariff changes
by public utilities, for general industry oversight, and to supplement
the documentation used during the Commission's audit process.
    168. The Commission is submitting to OMB a notification of these
proposed collections of information. For information on the
requirements, submitting comments on the collection of information and
the associated burden estimates, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, please contact the following:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of
the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
Tel: (202)

502-8415/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Or contact:

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, (Re: OMB Control Nos. 1902-0096), Tel:
(202) 395-4638, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
V. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    169. The Interim Rate Policy adopted in this Policy Statement is
effective September 25, 2009. The Commission has determined, with the
concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this Policy Statement is a ``major
rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\226\ The Commission will submit this
Policy Statement to both houses of Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2007).

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

             Appendix A--List of Commenters and Short Names
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Abbreviation                          Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AARP...................................  American Association of Retired
                                          Persons.
Academic Commenters....................  Michael C. Caramanis, Geoffrey
                                          Parker, and Richard D. Tabors.
Alcoa..................................  Alcoa Inc. and Alcoa Power
                                          Generating Inc.
Allegheny Companies....................  Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line
                                          Company and Allegheny Power.
American Transmission..................  American Transmission Company
                                          LLC.
APPA...................................  American Public Power
                                          Association.
APS....................................  Arizona Public Service Company.
AT&T...................................  AT&T, Inc.
AWEA...................................  American Wind Energy
                                          Association.
B-D Research...........................  Bochman-Danahy Research.
Black Hills Corp.......................  Black Hills Power, Black Hills/
                                          Colorado Electric Utility
                                          Company, LP d/b/a Black Hills
                                          Energy, and Cheyenne Light,
                                          Fuel and Power Company.
BP.....................................  BP Energy Company.
CAISO..................................  California Independent System
                                          Operator Corporation.
California Commission..................  Public Service Commission of
                                          California.
CenterPoint............................  CenterPoint Energy Houston
                                          Electric, LLC.
Chamber................................  U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Citizens Coalition.....................  The Empowerment Center of
                                          Greater Cleveland, the
                                          Neighborhood Environmental
                                          Coalition, Consumers for Fair
                                          Utility Rates, and Cleveland
                                          Neighborhood Housing.
Comverge...............................  Comverge, Inc.
CPower.................................  CPower, Inc.
CURRENT................................  CURRENT Group, LLC.
DRSG Coalition.........................  Demand Response and Smart Grid
                                          Coalition.
Duke...................................  Duke Energy Corporation.
EEI....................................  Edison Electric Institute.
ELCON..................................  Electricity Consumers Resource
                                          Council.
EPSA...................................  Electric Power Supply
                                          Association.
E.ON...................................  E.ON U.S. LLC.
FirstEnergy............................  FirstEnergy Service Company on
                                          behalf of its affiliates
                                          American Transmission Systems,
                                          Incorporated, the Cleveland
                                          Electric Illuminating Company,
                                          Jersey Central Power and Light
                                          Company, Metropolitan Edison
                                          Company, Ohio Edison Company,
                                          Pennsylvania Electric Company,
                                          Pennsylvania Power Company,
                                          and the Toledo Edison Company.
GridSolar..............................  GridSolar, LLC.
GridWise Alliance......................  GridWise Alliance.
GWAC...................................  GridWise Architecture Council.
Ice Energy.............................  Ice Energy, Inc.
Illinois Commission....................  Illinois Commerce Commission.
Indianapolis P&L.......................  Indianapolis Power & Light
                                          Company.
ISO-NE.................................  ISO New England Inc.
ITC Companies..........................  International Transmission
                                          Company d/b/a ITCTransmission,
                                          Michigan Electric Transmission
                                          Company, LLC, and ITC Midwest
                                          LLC.
James E. Miller........................  James E. Miller.
Kansas Commission......................  Kansas Corporation Commission.
Maryland Commission....................  Public Service Commission of
                                          Maryland (supplemental
                                          comments only).
Maryland Counsel.......................  Maryland Office of People's
                                          Counsel.
Massachusetts Attorney General.........  Massachusetts Office of
                                          Attorney General.
Michigan Commission....................  Michigan Public Service
                                          Commission.
Midwest ISO............................  Midwest Independent
                                          Transmission System Operator,
                                          Inc.
Midwest ISO Transmission Owners........  Midwest ISO Transmission
                                          Owners.
NARUC..................................  National Association of
                                          Regulatory Utility
                                          Commissioners.
National Grid..........................  National Grid USA.

Natural Gas Commenters.................  Natural Gas Supply Association,
                                          Interstate Natural Gas
                                          Association of America, and
                                          Independent Petroleum
                                          Association of America.
NEM and Intelligent Energy.............  National Energy Marketers
                                          Association and Intelligent
                                          Energy.
NEMA...................................  National Electrical
                                          Manufacturers Association.
NERC...................................  North American Electric
                                          Reliability Corporation.
New York Transmission Owners...........  Central Hudson Gas & Electric
                                          Corporation, Consolidated
                                          Edison Company of New York,
                                          Inc., New York Power
                                          Authority, New York State
                                          Electric & Gas Corporation,
                                          Orange and Rockland Utilities,
                                          Inc., and Rochester Gas and
                                          Electric Corporation
                                          (supplemental comments only).
North Carolina Agencies................  North Carolina Public Utilities
                                          Commission and Public Staff-NC
                                          Utilities Commission.
NRECA..................................  National Rural Electric
                                          Cooperative Association.
NRG Companies..........................  NRG Energy, Inc. and Reliant
                                          Energy Retail Services, LLC.
NYISO..................................  New York Independent System
                                          Operator.
Ohio Commission........................  Public Utilities Commission of
                                          Ohio.
Ohio Counsel...........................  Office of the Ohio Consumers'
                                          Counsel.
Ohio Partners..........................  Citizen Power, Cleveland
                                          Housing Network, Edgemont
                                          Neighborhood Coalition of
                                          Dayton, the Empowerment Center
                                          of Greater Cleveland, the
                                          Energy Project, the National
                                          Consumer Law Center, the
                                          Neighborhood Environmental
                                          Coalition, and Ohio Partners
                                          for Affordable Energy.
Open Secure Systems....................  Open Secure Energy Control
                                          Systems, LLC.
PG&E...................................  Pacific Gas and Electric
                                          Company.
PNM....................................  Public Service Company of New
                                          Mexico.
PSEG Companies.........................  PSEG Energy Resources & Trade
                                          LLC, Public Service Electric
                                          and Gas Company, PSEG Power
                                          LLC, PSEG Global LLC.
Public Interest Organizations..........  Project for Sustainable FERC
                                          Energy Policy, Conservation
                                          Law Foundation, Natural
                                          Resources Defense Council, The
                                          Commons, Union of Concerned
                                          Scientists, and Western Grid
                                          Group.
SDG&E..................................  San Diego Gas & Electric
                                          Company.
Silver Spring Networks.................  Silver Spring Networks.
Southern...............................  Southern Company Services, Inc.
Springfield............................  Springfield Utility Board.
TANC...................................  Transmission Agency of Northern
                                          California.
TAPS...................................  Transmission Access Policy
                                          Study Group (supplemental
                                          comments only).
TVA....................................  Tennessee Valley Authority.
Valley Group...........................  The Valley Group.
Wal-Mart...............................  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Xcel...................................  Xcel Energy Services Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-17624 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30005-30006]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0124; FMCSA-2013-0125; FMCSA-2013-0126; FMCSA-
2014-0104; FMCSA-2015-0327; FMCSA-2016-0003; FMCSA-2017-0057; FMCSA-
2017-0058]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 13
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on March 27, 2020. The exemptions
expire on March 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2013-0124, FMCSA-2013-0125, FMCSA-2013-
0126, FMCSA-2014-0104, FMCSA-2015-0327, FMCSA-2016-0003, FMCSA-2017-
0057, or FMCSA-2017-0058 in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document
to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Docket Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 7, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 13 individuals from the hearing standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested
comments from the public (85 FR 19573). The public comment period ended
on May 7, 2020, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 13 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    As of March 27, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 19573):

Deontae Blanks (TX)
Marquarius Boyd (MS)
Arthur Brown (FL)
Michael Bunjer (MD)
Marco Cisneros (CA)
Keith Drown (ID)
Edison Garcia (MD)
David Garland (ME)
James Gooch (MO)
Joseph Piros (CA)
Robert Quintero (IL)
Ronald Rumsey (IA)
Charles Wirick (MD)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0124, FMCSA-
2013-0125, FMCSA-2013-0126, FMCSA-2014-0104, FMCSA-2015-0327, FMCSA-
2016-0003, FMCSA-2017-0057, or FMCSA-2017-0058. Their exemptions are
applicable as of March 27, 2020, and will expire on March 27, 2022.

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-10691 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P