147. The NOPR proposed to direct NERC to modify the lower Violation
Risk Factor assigned to FAC-010-1, Requirement R2 and the medium
Violation Risk Factor assigned to sub-Requirements R2.1-R2.2.3 based on
guideline 4, which assesses whether a Violation Risk Factor conforms to
NERC's definition for the assigned risk level. The Commission proposed
to require NERC to assign each of these requirements a high Violation
Risk Factor.
    148. FAC-010-1, Requirement R2 requires each planning authority's
SOL methodology to include a requirement that SOLs provide for bulk
electric system performance consistent with a stable pre-contingency
(sub-Requirement R2.1) and post-contingency (sub-Requirements R2.2-
R2.2.3) bulk electric system using an accurate system topology with all
facilities operating within their ratings and without post-contingency
cascading outages or uncontrolled separation.
    149. Requirement R2.1 of FAC-010-1 requires each planning
authority's SOL methodology to include a requirement that SOLs
developed must provide for bulk electric system performance

consistent with transient, dynamic and voltage stability in a pre-
contingency state and with all facilities in service. In the NOPR, the
Commission stated that it believes that a lower Violation Risk Factor
is inappropriate because Requirement R2.1 of FAC-010-1 is not
administrative in nature. The Commission stated that it believes that a
violation of Requirement R2.1 could directly cause or contribute to
Bulk-Power System instability, separation or cascading failures,
because a violation of Requirement R2.1 means that the system is in an
unreliable state even before the system is subject to a contingency.
Therefore, we proposed to require NERC to change the Violation Risk
Factor for Requirement R.2.1 to high.
    150. The Commission had similar concerns with respect to FAC-010-1,
Requirement R2.2 because it specifically states that, with regard to
post-contingency bulk electric system performance, ``[c]ascading
outages or uncontrolled separation shall not occur.'' Therefore, the
Commission reasoned that if Requirement R2.2 is violated for any one of
the specific contingencies as described in Requirements R2.2.1-R2.2.3,
cascading outages or uncontrolled separation of the Bulk-Power System
may occur, which would merit a high Violation Risk Factor.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ NOPR at P 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    151. The Commission had similar concerns with the Violation Risk
Factor assignments of Requirement R2 and sub-Requirements R2.1-2.2.3 of
FAC-011-1, which contain language similar to Requirements in FAC-010-1.
Consequently, the NOPR proposed to modify the Violation Risk Factors
for these Requirements and sub-Requirements to high.
Comments
    152. NERC disagrees that it should assign high Violation Risk
Factors for Requirements R2 and R2.1-R2.2.3 for FAC-010-1. NERC agrees
that the lower Violation Risk Factor assignment for Requirement R2 of
FAC-010-1 merits reconsideration but does not agree that the Violation
Risk Factor assignment for Requirement R2 or the sub-Requirements
should be changed from medium to high. NERC proposes to process this
proposed change through the Commission-approved Reliability Standards
development process.
    153. NERC believes that FAC-010-1, Requirement R2 and its subparts
should only have a single Violation Risk Factor and this should be
medium. NERC maintains that Requirement R2 does not include any
obligations to conduct analyses or assessments, but merely lists topics
that must be included in the SOL methodology. NERC states that the
requirements to follow the methodology in setting the SOLs are included
in FAC-014-1. According to NERC, if FAC-010-1 Requirement R2 were
violated, the Bulk-Power System would not experience instability,
separation, or cascading failures in real-time. All of the uses of the
SOLs developed with the methodology in FAC-010-1 are for planning
purposes. While failure to comply with Requirement R2 and its sub-
requirements over the long term may affect the ability to effectively
monitor, control, or restore the Bulk-Power System, NERC states that a
violation of theses requirements is unlikely to lead to Bulk-Power
System instability, separation, or cascading failures.
    154. Ameren argues that, because the FAC Reliability Standards at
issue in this proceeding are administrative in nature and are not
operational Reliability Standards, a high Violation Risk Factor is
inappropriate. Because the Reliability Standards establish
methodologies, a violation does not directly threaten reliability.
    155. In response to the Commission's proposal in the NOPR, NERC
agrees that FAC-011-1, Requirement R2 and its sub-requirements merit
consideration for a high Violation Risk Factor assignment. NERC
proposes to process this proposed change through its Reliability
Standards development process. According to NERC, if the methodology
for setting real-time limits is not correct, then the resultant real-
time limits may be incorrect and operating to these incorrect limits
could directly lead to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or
cascading failures.
    156. For the reasons discussed in the general issues section,
above, Progress Energy disagrees that the Violation Risk Factors should
be modified. Ameren asserts that the Commission approved lower and
medium Violation Risk Factors for Requirements in FAC-008-1 and FAC-
009-1, which deal with setting and communicating the methodologies for
facility ratings and are comparable to FAC-010-1 and FAC-011-1, in the
Violation Risk Factor Order. To be consistent with other approved
Violation Risk Factors, Ameren argues that the Commission should not
order changes to the Violation Risk Factors for FAC-010-1 and FAC-011-
1.
Commission Determination
    157. NERC, Progress Energy and Ameren argue that the failure to
have a methodology to develop SOLs that is only used in the planning
horizon will not cause or contribute to Bulk-Power System instability,
separation, or cascading failures in real-time. The Commission
disagrees. The SOLs and remedial measures determined during
transmission planning ensure Reliable Operation in real-time. As the
Commission stated in Order No. 693, transmission planning is a process
that involves a number of stages including developing a model of the
Bulk-Power System, using this model to assess the performance of the
system for a range of operating conditions and contingencies,
determining those operating conditions and contingencies that have an
undesirable reliability impact, identifying the nature of potential
options and the need to develop and evaluate a range of solutions, and
selecting the preferred solution, taking into account the time needed
to place the solution in service.\85\ Also, the Blackout Report cited
FirstEnergy for violation of the then-effective NERC Planning Standard
1A, Category C.3--the equivalent of FAC-10-1, sub-Requirement
R2.3.3.\86\ The Blackout Report also found that had FirstEnergy
conducted adequate planning studies on voltage stability (e.g., FAC-
010-1, Requirement R2.2), it would not have set its minimum acceptable
voltage at 90 percent.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See Order No. 693 at P 1683.
    \86\ Blackout Report at 41.
    \87\ Id. at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    158. Because the SOLs and remedial measures determined during
transmission planning ensure Reliable Operation in real-time, the
Commission believes that violations of planning requirements of the SOL
methodology Reliability Standards present the same potential
reliability risks as violations in the operating time horizon. Our
determination is consistent with the NERC proposed, and Commission
approved definition of a high Violation Risk Factor, which considers
the violation of Requirements relevant to the planning time horizon.
    159. With regard to FAC-010-1, Requirement R2, and FAC-011-1,
Requirement R2, the Commission agrees with NERC that Requirement R2,
without its sub-Requirements, includes no required performance or
outcome. As such, no Violation Risk Factor needs to be assigned to
Requirement R2 in either FAC-010-1 or FAC-011-1. Further, the
Commission agrees with NERC that FAC-010-1, sub-Requirements R2.2.1-

R2.2.3 are topics to be included in an SOL methodology which do not
require an assessment or analysis to be performed. As such, a medium
Violation Risk Factor is appropriate.
    160. However, with regard to FAC-010-1, sub-Requirements R2.1 and
R2.2, the Commission disagrees with NERC that a medium Violation Risk
Factor is appropriate. Sub-Requirements R2.1-R2.2 require that the
planning authority's SOL methodology must include Requirements for SOLs
to demonstrate transient, dynamic, and voltage stability performance
pre- and post-contingency.
    161. The Commission believes that violations of FAC-010-1, sub-
Requirements R2.1 and R2.2 present similar, if not the same, risk to
Bulk-Power System reliability as violations of TPL-001-0, Requirement
R1 and TPL-002-0, Requirement R1. TPL-001-0, Requirement R1 establishes
reliable pre-contingency Bulk-Power System performance. NERC proposed,
and the Commission approved, a high Violation Risk Factor for TPL-001-
0, Requirement R1. TPL-002-0, Requirement R1 establishes reliable post-
contingency Bulk-Power System performance. The Commission directed, and
NERC revised, the Violation Risk Factor assignment for TPL-002-0,
Requirement R1 to high to be consistent with the pre-contingency
performance Requirement of TPL-001-0, Requirement R1. The Commission
believes both TPL Requirements establish similar, if not the same,
Bulk-Power System performance metrics as FAC-010-1, Requirements R2.1
and R2.2.
    162. Further, contrary to NERC's position, the Commission believes
that to demonstrate the pre- and post-contingency performance metrics
required by Requirements R2.1-R2.2 an assessment or analysis would need
to be performed. As such, Requirements R2.1-R2.2 provide for actions
that go beyond NERC's characterization of the subject of the
requirements as limited to a list of topics that must be included in a
methodology. Therefore, we conclude that these Requirements are more
properly treated as implementation or operational requirements that may
have a direct impact on reliability.
    163. For the same reasons, the Commission does not agree with
Ameren's argument that the Commission's proposal is inconsistent with
prior Violation Risk Factor determinations made for what Ameren
believes to be comparable Requirements of Reliability Standards FAC-
008-1 and FAC-009-1.\88\ As examples in support of its argument, Ameren
points to the Commission approved medium Violation Risk Factors for
FAC-008-1, Requirements R1.3.1-R1.3 and the lower Violation Risk
Factors for the remaining Requirements, all of which establish topics
that do not incorporate a performance metric to be included in a
methodology. Ameren also points to the medium Violation Risk Factor
assignments for Requirements of FAC-009-1 that establish facility
ratings based on a methodology. As the Commission states previously in
this order, FAC-010-1 and FAC-011-1 do not merely establish
documentation, methodologies, and administrative tasks, as is the case
for the Requirements that Ameren points to as examples of
inconsistencies. The FAC-010-1 and FAC-011-1 Requirements at issue
require the Bulk-Power System to demonstrate transient, dynamic, and
voltage stability performance pre- and post-contingency. The Commission
believes that, to demonstrate the pre- and post-contingency performance
metrics required by these Requirements, an assessment or analysis would
need to be performed. The Commission approved high Violation Risk
Factors for similar Bulk-Power System performance metrics. As such, the
Requirements at issue go beyond the establishment and documentation of
a methodology as Ameren suggests and are fully consistent with the
Violation Risk Factor assignments the Commission has previously
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Ameren Comments at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. The Commission agrees with NERC that the Requirements to
follow a methodology when determining SOLs are included in FAC-014-1.
However, as the Commission states above, FAC-010-1, Requirements R2.1-
R2.2 establish the performance metrics of the SOL methodology used.
Thus, if the planning authority's methodology to develop SOLs does not
meet the demonstrated performance metrics of these Requirements in a
planning time horizon, then under emergency, abnormal, or restorative
conditions, the Bulk-Power System would be at risk of instability,
separation, or cascading failures.
    165. With regard to the determination of SOLs for the operations
time horizon established by Reliability Standard FAC-011-1, Requirement
2 and its sub-Requirements, NERC comments, ``if the methodology for
setting real-time limits is not correct, then the resultant real-time
limits may be incorrect and operating to these incorrect limits could
directly lead to bulk-power system instability, separation, or
cascading failures.'' \89\ As such, NERC's statement supports the
Commission's rationale that FAC-011-1, Requirements R2.1-R2.2.3 merit
consideration of a high Violation Risk Factor. Consistent with the
previous Commission determination in this order that time horizons are
irrelevant in the determination of an appropriate Violation Risk Factor
assignment, and to ensure consistency with the conclusions of the
Blackout Report (guideline 1) and among similar Requirements of
Reliability Standards (guideline 3), the Commission directs NERC to
revise the Violation Risk Factor assigned to FAC-010-1, Requirements
R2.1-R2.2 to high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ NERC Comments at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    166. Similar to FAC-010-1, Requirements R2.2.1-R2.2.3, the
Commission believes that FAC-011-1, Requirements R2.2.1-R2.2.3 describe
topics to be included in an SOL methodology and do not require an
assessment or analysis to be performed. Therefore, the Commission
believes a medium Violation Risk Factor is appropriate for these
Requirements. Consequently, the Violation Risk Factor assignments for
FAC-011-1, Requirements R2.2.1-R2.2.3 do not need to be revised as the
Commission proposed in the NOPR.
3. FAC-014-1, Requirement R5
    167. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require NERC to assign
a high Violation Risk Factor to FAC-014-1, Requirement R5 and sub-
Requirements R5.1-5.1.4. The Commission was concerned that NERC's
proposal was not consistent with the findings of the Blackout Report.
    168. Requirement R5 requires that the reliability coordinator,
planning authority and transmission planner each provide its SOLs and
IROLs to those entities that have a reliability-related need for those
limits and provide a written request that includes a schedule for
delivery of those limits. Sub-Requirements R5.1-R5.1.4 comprise the
list of supporting information to be provided.
    169. The Blackout Report identified ineffective communications as
one common factor of the August 2003 blackout and other previous major
blackouts \90\ and explained that, ``[u]nder normal conditions, parties
with reliability responsibility need to communicate important and
prioritized information to each other in a timely way, to help preserve
the integrity of the grid.'' \91\ Because the Blackout Report, as

well as reports on other previous major blackouts, determined that the
timely communication of important and prioritized information, in this
case, SOLs and IROLs, to entities that have a reliability-related need
for those limits are crucial in maintaining the reliability of the
Bulk-Power System, the Commission stated that it believed assigning a
medium Violation Risk Factor assignment to FAC-014-1, Requirement R5
and sub-Requirements R5.1-5.1.4 was not consistent with the findings of
the Blackout Report. The Commission, therefore, proposed to require
NERC to assign a high Violation Risk Factor to these Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Blackout Report at 107.
    \91\ Id. at 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    170. NERC does not agree with the Commission's proposed
modification to FAC-014-1, Requirement R5 and its subparts. NERC
maintains that, while failure to act to prevent and/or mitigate an
instance of exceeding an IROL is expected to result in adverse system
consequences, FAC-014-1, Requirement R5 is not aimed at preventing and/
or mitigating an IROL. Rather, according to NERC, FAC-014-1,
Requirement R5 is aimed at communicating information to others. NERC
agrees that effective communication is one factor that can contribute
to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or cascading failures,
meriting a medium Violation Risk Factor.
    171. However, NERC does not agree that the failure to communicate
the actual or potential existence of SOLs and IROLs to those entities
that are not required to resolve those limits will result in Bulk-Power
System instability, separation, or cascading. NERC maintains that the
impact of not notifying adjacent entities of an actual or potential
IROL is a medium risk as it only impacts the ability of neighboring
entities to effectively monitor the Bulk-Power System. Further, NERC
notes that IRO-015-1, Requirement R1 requires that the reliability
coordinator make notifications and exchange reliability-related
information with other reliability coordinators. This requirement was
approved by the Commission with the medium Violation Risk Factor
assignment. This FAC-014-1, Requirement R5 is of a similar nature to
IRO-015-1, Requirement R1 and should therefore maintain its medium
Violation Risk Factor assignment.
    172. For the same reasons discussed above, Progress Energy argues
that the Commission should not modify the Violation Risk Factor to
high. Ameren asserts that the Commission approved medium Violation Risk
Factors for Requirements in FAC-013-1, which sets procedures for
establishing and communicating transfer capabilities and is comparable
to FAC-014-1, in the Violation Risk Factor Order. To be consistent with
other approved Violation Risk Factors, Ameren argues that the
Commission should not order changes to the Violation Risk Factors for
FAC-014-1.
Commission Determination
    173. The Commission agrees with NERC that FAC-014-1, Requirement R5
is not aimed at the prevention and/or mitigation of IROLs, but rather
the communication of SOL and IROL information. However, NERC's argument
is flawed in that Requirement R5 requires reliability coordinators,
planning authorities and transmission planners to communicate and
provide SOL and IROL information to entities that have a reliability-
related need for those limits. NERC's comments, on the other hand,
focus on provision of information to entities that are not required to
resolve those limits. Therefore, a failure to notify adjacent entities
of an actual or potential IROL creates a demonstrable risk because it
impairs the ability of neighboring entities to effectively monitor the
Bulk-Power System. In addition, the Commission believes that this
Requirement applies to both real-time operations and the planning time
frames, by ensuring that inter-dependent IROLs in adjacent footprints
are duly considered in the planning time frame and timely remedial
actions are taken in real-time operation.
    174. In the Violation Risk Factor Order, the Commission applied
guideline 1 to ensure critical areas identified as causes of that and
other previous major blackouts are appropriately assigned Violation
Risk Factors. Ineffective communication was identified as a factor
common to the August 2003 blackout and other previous major
blackouts.\92\ Further, the Blackout Report stated that ``[i]neffective
communications contributed to a lack of situational awareness and
precluded effective actions to prevent the cascade.'' \93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Id. at 109.
    \93\ Id. at 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    175. For the reasons stated above and lessons learned from previous
blackouts, the Commission believes Violation Risk Factor for
Requirement R5 and the sub-requirements in R5.1 should be assigned as
high to reflect the potential reliability risk of not communicating
IROLs to adjacent entities that have a reliability-related need for the
information. Since SOLs are determined to maintain Bulk-Power System
facilities within acceptable operating limits, the communication of
those limits to those with a reliability related need, ensures the
protection of Bulk-Power System facilities, thus preventing cascading
failures of the interconnected grid, the Commission directs NERC to
assign a high Violation Risk Factor to FAC-014-1, Requirement R5 and
sub-Requirements R5.1.
    176. The Commission also disagrees with NERC that the Commission's
proposal to revise Violation Risk Factors for Requirement R5 and its
sub-Requirements is inconsistent with previously approved Violation
Risk Factor assignments. NERC's reference to the medium Violation Risk
Factor assigned to IRO-015-1, Requirement R1 and Ameren's reference to
the medium Violation Risk Factor assigned to FAC-013-1 Requirements are
not inconsistencies. In both instances, the information that is to be
provided is not specifically relevant to SOLs and IROLs, where the
Commission has approved high Violation Risk Factors. For example, the
high Violation Risk Factor the Commission proposed in the NOPR is
consistent with previously approved Violation Risk Factor assignments
for similar Requirements R4 and R5 of Reliability Standard IRO-004-1.
Reliability Standard IRO-004-1, Requirements R4 and R5 establish the
provision and sharing of system study information, respectively,
relevant to the determination of SOLs and IROLs. NERC proposed, and the
Commission approved a high Violation Risk Factor for IRO-004-1,
Requirements R4 and R5. As such, to ensure consistency with the
conclusions of the Blackout Report and among similar Requirements of
other Reliability Standards, the Commission directs NERC to revise the
Violation Risk Factors for FAC-014-1, Requirements R5 and R5.1 to high.
    177. The Commission believes, however, that FAC-014-1, Requirements
R5.1.1--R5.1.4 provide supporting information. Therefore, the
Commission believes a medium Violation Risk Factor is appropriate for
these Requirements and the Violation Risk Factor assignments for FAC-
014-1, Requirements R5.1.1-R5.1.4 do not need to be revised as the
Commission proposed in the NOPR.
4. FAC-010-1, Requirement 3.6
    178. Reliability Standard FAC-010-1, Requirement 3.6 establishes
the criteria for determining, in the planning time horizon, when
violating an SOL qualifies as an IROL, and criteria for developing any
associated IROL Tv.

NERC proposed to assign Requirement 3.6 a lower Violation Risk Factor.
However, NERC proposed a medium Violation Risk Factor assignment to
Reliability Standard FAC-011-1, Requirement R3.7 which establishes the
same criteria in the operating time horizon. The Commission believes
that the criteria for determining when violating an SOL qualifies as an
IROL should be the same regardless of whether in the planning time
horizon or the operating time horizon. This fact is supported by the
Blackout Report finding that FirstEnergy did not have an adequate
criterion to determine voltage stability in both the planning and
operating time frames. That failure led to the company in adopting an
inappropriate 90 percent minimum acceptable voltage factor.\94\ Based
on these facts, the Commission concludes that the potential reliability
risk to the Bulk-Power system for a violation of those criteria in the
planning horizon is the same as the potential reliability risk in the
operating horizon. The Commission expects consistency between similar,
and in this instance, identically-worded, Requirements of Reliability
Standards. Therefore, the Commission directs NERC to ensure that the
proposed Violation Risk Factor for FAC-010-1, Requirement R3.6 is
changed from lower to medium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Blackout Report at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. FAC-011-1, Requirement 3.4
    179. NERC did not propose a Violation Risk Factor assignment for
Reliability Standard FAC-011-1, Requirement R3.4. Requirement R3.4
establishes a requirement that a Reliability Coordinator's SOL
methodology include a description of the level of detail to be
reflected in the system models that are used in the operating time
frame. NERC assigned a lower Violation Risk Factor to FAC-010-1,
Requirement 3.3 which establishes the same requirement for Planning
Authorities' SOL methodologies in the planning time frame. Consistent
with the definition of a lower Violation Risk Factor, the Commission
believes that a violation of FAC-011-1, Requirement 3.4 would not be
expected to affect the electrical state or capability or the Bulk-Power
System or the ability to effectively monitor and control the Bulk-Power
System. As such, and to ensure consistency among similar Requirements
of Reliability Standards, the Commission believes a lower Violation
Risk Factor assignment is appropriate for FAC-011-1, Requirement R3.4.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    180. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\95\ The information collection
requirements in this Final Rule are identified under the Commission
data collection, FERC-725D ``Facilities Design, Connections and
Maintenance Reliability Standards.'' Under section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,\96\ the proposed reporting
requirements in the subject rulemaking will be submitted to OMB for
review. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426 [Attention: Michael
Miller, Office of the Chief Information Officer], phone: (202) 502-
8415, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments on
the requirements of the proposed rule may be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission], fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2007).
    \96\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    181. The ``public protection'' provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 requires each agency to display a currently valid
control number and inform respondents that a response is not required
unless the information collection displays a valid OMB control number
on each information collection or provides a justification as to why
the information collection number cannot be displayed. In the case of
information collections published in regulations, the control number is
to be published in the Federal Register.
    182. The NOPR proposed to approve three new Reliability Standards
developed by NERC as the ERO. The NOPR stated that the three proposed
Reliability Standards do not require responsible entities to file
information with the Commission. Nor, with the exception of a three
year self-certification of compliance, do the Reliability Standards
require responsible entities to file information with the ERO or
Regional Entities. However, the Reliability Standards do require
responsible entities to develop and maintain certain information for a
specified period of time, subject to inspection by the ERO or Regional
Entities.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See NOPR at P 60-61 for a description of this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    183. Burden Estimate: Our estimate below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of April 2007.
NERC and the Regional Entities have identified approximately 170
Investor-Owned Utilities, and 80 Large Municipals and Cooperatives.
NERC's compliance registry indicates that there is a significant amount
of overlap among the entities that perform these functions. In some
instances, a single entity may be registered under all four of these
functions. Thus, the Commission estimates that the total number of
entities required to comply with the information ``reporting'' or
development requirements of the proposed Reliability Standards is
approximately 250 entities. About two-thirds of these entities are
investor-owned utilities and one-third is a combination of municipal
and cooperative organizations.
    184. The Public Reporting burden for the requirements approved in
the Final Rule is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Data collection
-----------------------------------    Number of       Number of     Hours per respondent    Total annual hours
             FERC-725D                respondents      responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investor-Owned Utilities..........             170               1  Reporting: 90........  Reporting: 15,300.
                                    ..............  ..............  Recordkeeping: 210...  Recordkeeping:
                                                                                35,700.
Large Municipals and Cooperatives.              80               1  Reporting: 90........  Reporting: 7,200.
                                    ..............  ..............  Recordkeeping: 210...  Recordkeeping:
                                                                                16,800.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................             250  ..............  .....................  75,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Hours: (Reporting 22,500 hours + Recordkeeping 52,500 hours)
= 75,000 hours. (FTE=Full Time Equivalent or 2,080 hours).
    Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Reporting + Recordkeeping =
75,000 hours.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission projects the average
annualized cost to be the total annual hours (reporting) 22,500 times
$120 = $2,700,000.
hour).
    Storage 1,800 sq. ft. x $925 (off site storage) = $1,665,000.
    Total costs = $6,465,000.
    The Commission believes that this estimate may be conservative
because most if not all of the applicable entities currently perform
SOL calculations and the proposed Reliability Standards will provide a
common methodology for those calculations.
    Title: FERC-725D Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance
Reliability Standards.
    Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0247.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: One time to initially comply with the rule,
and then on occasion as needed to revise or modify. In addition, annual
and three-year self-certification requirements will apply.
    Necessity of the Information: The three Reliability Standards, if
adopted, would implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards
to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System.
Specifically, the three proposed Reliability Standards would ensure
that system operating limits or SOLs used in the reliability planning
and operation of the Bulk-Power System are determined based on an
established methodology.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System
and determined the proposed requirements are necessary to meet the
statutory provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These
requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information
collection, communication and management within the energy industry.
The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information requirements.

V. Environmental Analysis

    185. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\98\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. The actions proposed here fall within the categorical
exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination.\99\ Accordingly, neither an environmental
impact statement nor environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \99\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5) (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    186. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \100\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Most of the entities, i.e., planning authorities, reliability
coordinators, transmission planners and transmission operators, to
which the requirements of this Final Rule apply do not fall within the
definition of small entities.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \101\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632. According to the SBA, a small electric utility is
defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four
million MWh in the preceding year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    187. As indicated above, based on available information regarding
NERC's compliance registry, approximately 250 entities will be
responsible for compliance with the three new Reliability Standards. It
is estimated that one-third of the responsible entities, about 80
entities, would be municipal and cooperative organizations. The
approved Reliability Standards would apply to planning authorities,
transmission planners, transmission operators and reliability
coordinators, which tend to be larger entities. Thus, the Commission
believes that only a portion, approximately 30 to 40 of the municipal
and cooperative organizations to which the approved Reliability
Standards will apply, qualify as small entities.\102\ The Commission
does not consider this a substantial number. Moreover, as discussed
above, the approved Reliability Standards will not be a burden on the
industry since most if not all of the applicable entities currently
perform SOL calculations and the approved Reliability Standards will
simply provide a common methodology for those calculations.
Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the approved Reliability
Standards will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ According to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy
Information Administration (EIA), there were 3,284 electric utility
companies in the United States in 2005, and 3,029 of these electric
utilities qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. Among
these 3,284 electric utility companies are: (1) 883 cooperatives of
which 852 are small entity cooperatives; (2) 1,862 municipal
utilities, of which 1,842 are small entity municipal utilities; (3)
127 political subdivisions, of which 114 are small entity political
subdivisions; and (4) 219 privately owned utilities, of which 104
could be considered small entity private utilities. See Energy
Information Administration Database, Form EIA-861, DOE (2005),
available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html
.

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

    188. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.

VII. Document Availability

    189. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC'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.
    190. From FERC'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.
    191. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC's Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-

8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the

Public Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    192. These regulations are effective February 8, 2008. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix A: Commission Directed Revisions to Violation Risk Factor
Assignments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Violation risk factor
                                                                                ---------------------------------------------
   Standard  number    Requirement  number              Text of requirement                                         Commission             Guideline
                                                                                NERC  proposal         determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAC-010-1............  R2.................  The Planning Authority's SOL Methodology     Lower..............  Explanatory Text......  ..................
                                             shall include a requirement that SOLs
                                             provide BES performance consistent with
                                             the following:
FAC-010-1............  R2.1...............  In the pre-contingency state, the BES shall  Medium.............  High..................  3 (Consistent with
                                             demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage                                                FAC-011-1 R2.1).
                                             stability; all Facilities shall be within
                                             their Facility Ratings and within their
                                             thermal, voltage and stability limits. In
                                             the determination of SOLs, the BES
                                             condition used shall reflect current or
                                             expected system conditions and shall
                                             reflect changes to system topology such as
                                             Facility outages
FAC-010-1............  R2.2...............  Following the single Contingencies \1\       Medium.............  High..................  3 (Consistent with
                                             identified in Requirement 2.2.1 through                                                   FAC-011-1 R2.2).
                                             Requirement 2.2.3, the system shall
                                             demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage
                                             stability; all Facilities shall be
                                             operating within their Facility Ratings
                                             and within their thermal, voltage and
                                             stability limits; and Cascading Outages or
                                             uncontrolled separation shall not occur
FAC-010-1............  R3.6...............  Criteria for determining when violating a    Lower..............  Medium................  3 (Consistent with
                                             SOL qualifies as an Interconnection                                                       FAC-011-1 R3.7).
                                             Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) and
                                             criteria for developing any associated
                                             IROL Tv
FAC-011-1............  R2*................  The Reliability Coordinator's SOL            Medium.............  Explanatory Text        ..................
                                             Methodology shall include a requirement
                                             that SOLs provide BES performance
                                             consistent with the following:
FAC-011-1............  R2.1*..............  In the pre-contingency state, the BES shall  Medium.............  High                    ..................
                                             demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage
                                             stability; all Facilities shall be within
                                             their Facility Ratings and within their
                                             thermal, voltage and stability limits. In
                                             the determination of SOLs, the BES
                                             condition used shall reflect current or
                                             expected system conditions and shall
                                             reflect changes to system topology such as
                                             Facility outages
FAC-011-1............  R2.2*..............  Following the single Contingencies \1\       Medium.............  High                    ..................
                                             identified in Requirement 2.2.1 through
                                             Requirement 2.2.3, the system shall
                                             demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage
                                             stability; all Facilities shall be
                                             operating within their Facility Ratings
                                             and within their thermal, voltage and
                                             stability limits; and Cascading Outages or
                                             uncontrolled separation shall not occur
FAC-011-1............  R3.4...............  Level of detail of system models used to     Not assigned.......  Lower.................  3 (Consistent with
                                             determine SOLs                                                                            FAC-010-1 R3.3).
FAC-014-1............  R5.................  The Reliability Coordinator, Planning        Medium.............  High..................  1, 3 (Consistent
                                             Authority and Transmission Planner shall                                                  with IRO-004-1 R4
                                             each provide its SOLs and IROLs to those                                                  & R5).
                                             entities that have a reliability-related
                                             need for those limits and provide a
                                             written request that includes a schedule
                                             for delivery of those limits as follows:
FAC-014-1............  R5.1...............  The Reliability Coordinator shall provide    Medium.............  High..................  1, 3 (Consistent
                                             its SOLs (including the subset of SOLs                                                    with IRO-004-1 R4
                                             that are IROLs) to adjacent Reliability                                                   & R5).
                                             Coordinators and Reliability Coordinators
                                             who indicate a reliability-related need
                                             for those limits, and to the Transmission
                                             Operators, Transmission Planners,
                                             Transmission Service Providers and
                                             Planning Authorities within its
                                             Reliability Coordinator Area. For each
                                             IROL, the Reliability Coordinator shall
                                             provide the following supporting
                                             information:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Requirements whose proposed Violation Risk Factor assignment NERC identifies as meriting reconsideration.
Guideline 1: Violation Risk Factor assignment not consistent with Final Blackout Report conclusions.
Guideline 3: Violation Risk Factor assignment not consistent among Reliability Standards with similar Reliability Requirements.

Appendix B: Commenters on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Abbreviation                            Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren...........................  Ameren Service Co.
APPA.............................  American Public Power Association
BPA\+\...........................  Bonneville Power Administration
Duke.............................  Duke Energy Corporation
EEI..............................  Edison Electric Institute
EPSA.............................  Electric Power Supply Association
FirstEnergy\+\...................  FirstEnergy Service Company
IESO.............................  Independent Electricity System
                                    Operator of Ontario
ISO/RTO Council..................  ISO/RTO Council
MidAmerican......................  MidAmerican Energy Company and
                                    PacifiCorp
Midwest ISO......................  Midwest Independent Transmission
                                    System Operator, Inc.
NERC.............................  North American Electric Reliability
                                    Corp.
NYISO\+\.........................  New York Independent System Operator,
                                    Inc.
NRECA............................  National Rural Electric Cooperative
                                    Association
NYSRC............................  New York State Reliability Council,
                                    LLC
Ontario IESO\+\..................  Ontario Independent Electricity
                                    System Operator
Progress Energy..................  Progress Energy, Inc.
Santa Clara......................  City of Santa Clara, California,
                                    doing business as Silicon Valley
                                    Power
SoCal Edison.....................  Southern California Edison Company
Southern.........................  Southern Company Services, Inc.
WECC.............................  Western Electricity Coordinating
                                    Council
Xcel.............................  Xcel Energy Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+\Comments filed out-of-time.

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JA08.032

[FR Doc. E7-25488 Filed 1-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 169 (Friday, September 3, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49476-49478]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0505]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and
Kent Island, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD, and Kent Island,
Queen Anne's County, MD, during a paddling event on September 26, 2021.
This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0505 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, in the
Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    ABC Events, Inc. of Arnold, MD, notified the Coast Guard that from
8 a.m. to noon on September 26, 2021, it will be conducting the Bay
Bridge Paddle on the Chesapeake Bay, under and between the north and
south bridges that consist of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301)
Memorial Bridges, located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD
and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD. In response, on July 15,
2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled ``Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point
and Kent Island, MD'' (86 FR 37270). There we stated why we issued the
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to
this paddle racing event. During the comment period that ended August
16, 2021, we received no comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the date of the event, it
would be impracticable to make the regulation effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date date
of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the ``Bay Bridge Paddle'' event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP)
has determined that potential hazards associated with the paddle races
will be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this
event or for vessels that operate within specified waters of the
Chesapeake Bay between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. These hazards
include numerous event participants crossing designated navigation
channels and interfering with vessels operating within those channels,
as well as operating within approaches to the Sandy Point State Park
public boat launch facility and marina. The purpose of this rule is to
protect event participants, non-participants and transiting vessels
before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published July
15, 2021. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes special local regulations from 7 a.m. to 1
p.m. on September 26, 2021. The regulated area will cover all navigable
waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the

shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the
spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to
shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western
shoreline at latitude 39[deg]01'05.23'' N, longitude 076[deg]23'47.93''
W; thence eastward to latitude 39[deg]01'02.08'' N, longitude
076[deg]22'40.24'' W; thence southeastward to eastern shoreline at
latitude 38[deg]59'13.70'' N, longitude 076[deg]19'58.40'' W; and
bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of
the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at
latitude 39[deg]00'17.08'' N, longitude 076[deg]24'28.36'' W; thence
southward to latitude 38[deg]59'38.36'' N, longitude 076[deg]23'59.67''
W; thence eastward to latitude 38[deg]59'26.93'' N, longitude
076[deg]23'25.53'' W; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at
latitude 38[deg]58'40.32'' N, longitude 076[deg]20'10.45'' W, located
between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.
    The duration of the special local regulations and size of the
regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the paddle races, scheduled
from 8 a.m. to noon on September 26, 2021. The COTP and the Coast Guard
Event PATCOM will have authority to forbid and control the movement of
all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person
in the regulated area will be required to immediately comply with the
directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM. If a person or vessel
fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from
the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.
    Except for Bay Bridge Paddle participants and vessels already at
berth, a vessel or person will be required to get permission from the
COTP or Event PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel
operators will be able to request permission to enter and transit
through the regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM
channel 16. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated
area once the Event PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A vessel within the
regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A person
or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or
assigned as official patrols will be considered a non-participant.
Official patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or Event PATCOM, a person or
vessel will be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed. Official patrols enforcing
this regulated area can be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 and channel
22A.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
duration of the regulated area, which will impact a small designated
area of the Chesapeake Bay for 6 hours. The Coast Guard will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule will allow vessels to
seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic will be
able to safely transit the regulated area once the Event PATCOM deems
it safe to do so.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore
side activities in the event area for 6 hours. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for the
Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T05-0505 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0505  Bay Bridge Paddle, Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy
Point and Kent Island, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: All navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to
the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the
spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to
shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western
shoreline at latitude 39[deg]01'05.23'' N, longitude 076[deg]23'47.93''
W; thence eastward to latitude 39[deg]01'02.08'' N, longitude
076[deg]22'40.24'' W; thence southeastward to eastern shoreline at
latitude 38[deg]59'13.70'' N, longitude 076[deg]19'58.40'' W; and
bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of
the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at
latitude 39[deg]00'17.08'' N, longitude 076[deg]24'28.36'' W; thence
southward to latitude 38[deg]59'38.36'' N, longitude 076[deg]23'59.67''
W; thence eastward to latitude 38[deg]59'26.93'' N, longitude
076[deg]23'25.53'' W; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at
latitude 38[deg]58'40.32'' N, longitude 076[deg]20'10.45'' W, located
between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. The coordinates are based on
datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander (Event PATCOM) means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the ``Bay Bridge Paddle'' event, or
otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a function tied to
the event.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) Except for participants and
vessels already at berth, all non-participants are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event
PATCOM.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM.
    (3) Official patrols will direct non-participants while within the
regulated area. Official patrols enforcing the regulated area can be
contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 and channel 22A.
    (4) The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region will provide notice
of the regulated area through advanced notice via Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and
on-scene official patrols.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
federal, state, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 1 p.m. on September 26, 2021.

    Dated: August 30, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-19102 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21229]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1676-000]

Community Wind North 9 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Community Wind North 9 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 28, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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: April 8, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08440 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75553-75554]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-1063]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Biscayne Bay, and Miami River, Miami, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviations from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued temporary deviations from the
regulations governing the operation of the following four bridges in
Miami, Florida: The Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), mile 1088.6,
across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; the Venetian Causeway Bridge
(East), across Biscayne Bay; the Miami Avenue Bridge, mile 0.3, across
the Miami River; and the Brickell Avenue Bridge, mile 0.1, across the
Miami River. The deviations are necessary to allow for race
participants to traverse the bridges during the ING Marathon. This
deviation will result in the bridges remaining in the closed position
during the ING Marathon. Tugs and tugs with tows are not exempt from
this deviation.

DATES: These deviations are effective from 6 a.m. through 1 p.m. on
January 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this temporary deviation, USCG-2012-1063, is
available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting
USCG-2012-1063 in the ``Search'' box and then clicking ``Search''. The
docket is also available for inspection or copying at the Docket
Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Michael Lieberum, Seventh District
Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ING Marathon Director has requested
temporary modifications to the operating schedules of the Venetian
Causeway Bridge (West), the Venetian Causeway Bridge (East), the
Brickell Avenue Bridge, and the Miami Avenue Bridge in Miami, Florida.
These deviations will result in the bridges remaining in the closed
position during the ING Marathon on January 27, 2013. The ING Marathon
route passes over these four bridges. Any bridge opening would disrupt
the race. The temporary deviations will be in effect from 6 a.m.
through 1 p.m. on January 27, 2013.
    The vertical clearance, regular operating schedule, and deviation
period for each bridge are set forth below.
    1. Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), mile 1088.6. The vertical
clearance of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, is 12 feet. The normal operating schedule for
the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) is set forth in 33 CFR 117.261(nn),
which requires the bridge to open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to
7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need
only open on the hour and half-hour. As a result of this temporary
deviation, the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) will remain closed to
navigation from 6:10 a.m. to 9:56 a.m. on January 27, 2013.
    2. Venetian Causeway Bridge (East). The vertical clearance of the
Venetian Causeway Bridge (East), across Biscayne Bay, is 5 feet. The
normal operating schedule for the Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) is
set forth in 33 CFR 117.269, which requires the bridge to open on
signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays, the bridge need only open on the hour and
half-hour. As a result of this temporary deviation, the Venetian
Causeway Bridge (East) will remain closed to navigation from 6 a.m. to
9:15 a.m. on January 27, 2013.
    3. Miami Avenue Bridge, mile 0.3. The vertical clearance of the
Miami Avenue Bridge, across the Miami River, is 21 feet. The normal
operating schedule for the Miami Avenue Bridge is set forth in 33 CFR
117.305(c), which requires the bridge to open on signal, except that
from 7:35 a.m. to 8:59 a.m., 12:05 p.m. to 12:59 p.m., and 4:35 p.m. to
5:59 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge
need not open for the passage of vessels. As a result of this temporary
deviation, the Miami Avenue Bridge will remain closed to navigation
from 6:25 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. on January 27, 2013.
    4. Brickell Avenue Bridge, mile 0.1. The vertical clearance of the
Brickell Avenue Bridge, across the Miami River, is 23 feet. The normal
operating schedule for the Brickell Avenue Bridge is set forth in 33
CFR 117.305(d), which requires the bridge to open on signal; except
that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays, the bridge need open only on the hour and half-hour. From
7:35 a.m. to 8:59 a.m., 12:05 p.m. to 12:59 p.m., and 4:35 p.m. to 5:59
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the bridge need
not open for the passage of vessels. As a result of this temporary
deviation, the Brickell Avenue Bridge will remain closed to navigation
from 6:25 a.m. to 1 p.m. on January 27, 2013.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), these four drawbridges must
return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of
the effective period of this temporary deviation. These deviations from
the operating regulations are authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 11, 2012.
B.L. Dragon,
Bridge Program Director, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-30840 Filed 12-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 63146]
[DOCID:fr02de09-29]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ P-13590-000]

Lockhart Power Company; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

November 23, 2009.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 13590-000.
    c. Date Filed: September 28, 2009.
    d. Submitted By: Lockhart Power Company (Lockhart Power).
    e. Name of Project: Riverdale Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Enoree River in Spartanburg and Laurens
Counties, South Carolina. No federal lands are occupied by the project
works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's Regulations
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Bryan Stone, Lockhart Power
Company, Chief Operating Officer, 420 River Street, P.O. Box 10,
Lockhart, South Carolina 29364; 1-800-368-1289.
    i. FERC Contact: Bryan Roden-Reynolds at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Lockhart Power filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on September 28, 2009. Lockhart Power provided public
notice of its request on September 29 and 30, 2009. In a letter dated
November 20, 2009, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
approved Lockhart Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the
joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; (b) NMFS under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
Section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Lockhart Power as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Lockhart Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(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, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28793 Filed 12-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41370]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0356]

Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, Pier 66, Elliott Bay,
Seattle, Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of non-enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will not enforce the safety zone for the Fleet
Week Maritime Festival on waters adjacent to Pier 66 in Elliott Bay,
Seattle, WA in July and August 2020. The Captain of the Port Sector
Puget Sound has determined that since the event is cancelled,
enforcement of this regulation is not necessary.

DATES: The Coast Guard does not plan to enforce regulations in 33 CFR
165.1330 in July and August 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of non-enforcement, call or email CWO2 William E.
Martinez, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard normally enforces the safety
zone in 33 CFR 165.1330 for the Fleet Week Maritime Festival on waters
adjacent to Pier 66 in Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA. This event is held
annually during the parade of ships on the last week of July or first
week of August. This year, the event organizers cancelled Fleet Week.
Therefore, the Coast Guard does not plan to enforce 33 CFR 165.1330,
for July and August 2020.
    In addition to this notification of non-enforcement in the Federal
Register, if the situation changes and the Captain of the Port Sector
Puget Sound (COTP) determines that the regulated area needs to be
enforced, the COTP will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
provide actual notice of enforcement to any persons in the regulated
area.

    Dated: June 23, 2020.
L.A. Sturgis,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2020-13981 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 67299-67300]
[DOCID:fr28no07-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0573; FRL-8141-1]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petition for Amendment of Residues
of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, n-Alkyl (C12-C18) Dimethyl Benzyl
Ammonium Chlorides on Food Contact Surfaces

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the amendment of regulations 40 CFR 180.940(a) for
residues of antimicrobial pesticide formulation containing n-
Alkyl(C12-C18) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides
applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy
processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0573 and pesticide petition number (PP), by
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0573. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket 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 material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Velma Noble, Product Manager (31).
Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).

     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home
page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

Amendment to Existing Tolerance Exemption

    PP 6F7071. Edwards-Councilor Co., Inc 1427 Baker Road Airport
Industrial Park Virginia Beach, VA 23455, proposes to amend the
tolerance(s) in 40 CFR 180.190(a) for residues of the antimicrobial
pesticide formulations containing n-Alkyl (C12-
C18) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides that may be applied
to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing
equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils. When ready for
use, end-use concentration of total quaternary chemicals, n-Alkyl
(C12-C18) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides, in
solution is not to exceed 400 parts per million (ppm). Analytical
method is not necessary since these quaternary ammonium compounds are
exempt from the requirement of a tolerance.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Food Contact Sanitizers, ADBAC, Food
additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: November 16, 2007.
 Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-23056 Filed 11-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S