[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60726-60727]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34994; File No. 812-15462]

Onex Falcon Direct Lending BDC Fund, et al.

August 30, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order (``Order'') under sections 17(d)
and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule
17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise
prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1
under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to amend a previous
order granted by the Commission that permits certain business
development companies (``BDCs'') and closed-end management investment
companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with
certain affiliated investment entities.

Applicants: Onex Falcon Direct Lending BDC Fund, Onex Credit Lending
Partners I LP, Onex Senior Credit Fund, L.P., Onex Senior Credit II,
LP, Onex Capital Solutions (Luxembourg), SCSP, Onex Capital Solutions
LP, Onex Credit High Yield Bond Fund, LP, Onex Credit HY LP, Onex
Credit Proprietary Fund LP, Onex Senior Loan Opportunity Fund I, LP,
Onex Structured Credit Opportunities Fund I, LP, P-O Senior Loan
Opportunity Fund, LP., OCP CLO 2013-4, Ltd., OCP CLO 2014-5, Ltd., OCP
CLO 2014-6, Ltd., OCP CLO 2014-7, Ltd., OCP CLO 2015-9, Ltd., OCP CLO
2015-10, Ltd., OCP CLO 2016-11, Ltd., OCP CLO 2016-12, Ltd., OCP CLO
2017-13, Ltd., OCP CLO 2017-14, Ltd., OCP CLO 2018-15, Ltd., OCP CLO
2019-16, Ltd., OCP CLO 2019-17, Ltd., OCP CLO 2020-8R, Ltd., OCP CLO
2020-18, Ltd., OCP CLO 2020-19, Ltd., OCP CLO 2020-20, Ltd., OCP CLO
2021-21, Ltd., OCP CLO 2021-22, Ltd., OSD CLO 2021-23, Ltd., OCP CLO
2022-24, Ltd., OCP CLO 2022-25, Ltd., OCP CLO 2023-26, Ltd., OSD CLO
2023-27, Ltd., OCP Euro CLO 2017-1 Designated Activity Company, OCP
Euro CLO 2017-2 Designated Activity Company, OCP Euro CLO 2019-3
Designated Activity Company, OCP Euro CLO 2020-4 Designated Activity
Company, OCP Euro CLO 2022-5 Designated Activity Company, OCP Euro CLO
2022-6 Designated Activity Company, Falcon Strategic Partners IV, LP,
Falcon Strategic Partners V, LP, Falcon Structured Equity Partners, LP,
Falcon Private Credit Opportunities VI, LP, Onex Falcon Private Credit
Opportunities VII, LP, Onex Falcon Private Credit Opportunities VII
(Luxembourg), SCSP, Onex Falcon Direct Lending (Luxembourg), SCSP, Onex
Evergreen Credit Master Fund, L.P., Onex Passive Holdings LLC, OMI
Interval Holdings LLC, Onex Credit Partners, LLC, Onex Falcon
Investment Advisors, LLC, Onex Credit Management LLC, Onex Credit
Partners Europe LLP, Onex Credit Finance Corporation and Onex Credit
Finance II Corporation.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 5, 2023, and amended on
July 20, 2023.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on,
September 25, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by

emailing the Commission's Secretary at [email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: Rajib
Chanda, Esq., Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, at
[email protected]; Steven Grigoriou, Esq., Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, at [email protected]; and William J. Kennedy,
Jr., Onex Falcon Investment Advisors, LLC, 21 Custom House Street, 10th
Floor, Boston, MA 02110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, or
Terri Jordan, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and
restated application, dated July 20, 2023, which may be obtained via
the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of
this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field,
on the SEC's EDGAR system.
    The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the
SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19088 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87566-87568]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1999-D-1875]

Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 615.115 on Extralabel Use of
Medicated Feeds for Minor Species; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a revised Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 615.115
entitled ``Extralabel Use of Medicated Feeds for Minor Species.'' In
advance of the January 1, 2017, date on which we anticipate that a
number of drugs will convert from over-the-counter (OTC) to veterinary
feed directive (VFD) status, this revised CPG clarifies policy and
regulatory action guidance to FDA staff on the Agency's exercise of
regulatory discretion with regard to the extralabel use of medicated
feeds containing those drugs in minor species.

DATES: The Agency is soliciting public comment, but is implementing
this CPG immediately because the Agency has determined that prior
public participation is not feasible or appropriate. You may submit
either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov/
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact

information, or other information that identifies you in the body of
your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov/.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-1999-D-1875 for ``Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 615.115 Extralabel
Use of Medicated Feeds for Minor Species.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov/ or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov/. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets
Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be
made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover
sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the CPG to the Policy
and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and
Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the CPG.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber McCoig, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-230), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The revised CPG is intended to clarify policy and regulatory action
guidance to FDA staff on the Agency's exercise of regulatory discretion
with regard to the extralabel use of medicated feed in minor species.
We are implementing this CPG without prior public comment because we
have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or
appropriate (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). Although this CPG is immediately in
effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation.
    The treatment of minor species is especially challenging for two
reasons. First, many minor species, such as fish and game birds, have
very few drugs approved for their use. As a result, veterinarians often
times have to treat these species in an extralabel manner, using drugs
that are not approved for them. Further, some minor species cannot
practically be medicated in any way other than through the use of
medicated feeds. Because extralabel use of medicated feeds is not
permitted, veterinarians face an additional challenge to prevent
unnecessary suffering and death of minor species.
    In 2001, FDA published CPG 615.115 to provide guidance to FDA staff
concerning the Agency's exercise of regulatory discretion with regard
to the extralabel use of medicated feeds in minor species. The CPG was
silent regarding the different marketing statuses of medicated feeds
and did not explicitly address situations involving feeds containing
VFD drugs.
    In the Federal Register of December 12, 2013, FDA announced
Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213 entitled ``New Animal Drugs and New
Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed
or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug
Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions With Guidance
for Industry #209'' (78 FR 75570). As a result of GFI #213, FDA
anticipates that, beginning January 1, 2017, a number of drugs,
including some drugs used in medicated feeds, will convert from OTC
marketing status to VFD marketing status. As this conversion occurs,
drugs that previously were available OTC for producers and
veterinarians for use in medicated feed will become VFD drugs. Because
the current CPG is silent regarding the different marketing statuses of
medicated feeds, to avoid potential confusion and harm to minor species
requiring treatment with certain drug products converting from OTC to
VFD, the Agency has decided to revise CPG 615.115 to explicitly clarify
our intent to exercise regulatory discretion over both OTC and VFD
feeds. In order to inform stakeholders before January 1, 2017, of the
Agency's expectations regarding the extralabel use of VFD feeds in
minor species, we are implementing this CPG immediately. We are
soliciting public comment on this CPG, but immediate implementation
will give stakeholders the opportunity to operate under the provisions
of this CPG before they submit comments.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This CPG is being issued as a level 1 guidance for FDA staff
consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR
10.115). The CPG represents the current thinking of FDA on the
extralabel use of medicated feeds for minor species. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the CPG at either
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/

GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 18, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-29133 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27816-27817]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12738]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9963-11-ORD]

Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring
Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference
Method and One New Equivalent Method

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the designation of one new reference method and one
new equivalent method for monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated one new reference method for measuring
concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), and one new equivalent method
for measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in
ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods
and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting
their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of all reference or
equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.

    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference
method for measuring concentrations of CO in ambient air and one new
equivalent method for measuring concentrations of NO2 in
ambient air. These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR
part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291-65468).
    The new reference method for CO is an automated method (analyzer)
utilizing a measurement principle based on non-dispersive infrared
(NDIR) analysis and is identified as follows:
    RFCA-0317-244, ``Kentek Mezus Model 310 Carbon Monoxide Analyzer''
non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer operated in the measurement
range of 0-50 ppm, with 0.5 [micro]m, 47 mm diameter Teflon[supreg]
filter installed, operated at any ambient temperatures between 20
[deg]C and 30 [deg]C, at nominal input line voltages of 110 VAC or 220
VAC and frequencies of 50 to 60 Hz, with temperature and pressure
compensation, at a nominal sampling flow rate of 800 cc/min, and
operated according to the Kentek Mezus 310 CO User's Instruction
Manual.
    This application for a reference method determination for this CO
method was received by the Office of Research and Development on May
25, 2016. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant,
Kentek Environmental Technology, Hanshin S Meca Room #526, 65 Techbi 3-
ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 34016.
    The new equivalent method for NO2 is an automated method
(analyzer) utilizing a measurement principle based on cavity attenuated
phase shift (CAPS) spectroscopy and is identified as follows:
    EQNA-0217-242, ``Ecotech Serinus 60 NO2 CAPS (Cavity
Attenuated Phase Shift) Analyzer'' operated at temperatures between 20
[deg]C and 45 [deg]C, a line voltage between 80V and 260V, and with or
without any of the following options: Rack mounts, internal pump,
internal permeation device, high pressure calibration ports, Ethernet
output. The following menu choices must be selected: Control Loop--
Enabled; Diagnostic Mode--Operate; Pres/Temp/Flow Compensation--
Enabled; Span Compensation--Disabled, and operated according to the
Serinus 60 User Manual.
    This application for an equivalent method determination for this
NO2 method was received by the Office of Research and
Development on January 11, 2017. This analyzer is commercially
available from the applicant, Ecotech Pty. Ltd., 1492 Ferntree Gully
Rd., Knoxfield, Victoria, 3180, Australia.
    Representative test analyzers have been tested in accordance with
the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended
on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and
other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with part 53, that these methods should be designated as a
reference or equivalent method.
    As a designated reference or equivalent method, these methods are
acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
For such purposes, each method must be used in strict accordance with
the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and
subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or
operational settings) specified in the designated method description
(see the identification of the method above).
    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program,'' EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods
by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by
Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions
should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurement
Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
    Designation of these reference and equivalent methods is intended
to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality
surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the
commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be
directed to the applicant.

    Dated: May 17, 2017.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2017-12738 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 200 (Thursday, October 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65207-65214]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket Nos. RM19-16-000 and RM19-17-000; Order No. 873]

Electric Reliability Organization Proposal To Retire Requirements
in Reliability Standards Under the NERC Standards Efficiency Review

AGENCY:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
approves the retirement of 18 Reliability Standard requirements
identified by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. The
Commission also remands proposed Reliability Standard FAC-008-4 for
further consideration by NERC. The Commission takes no action at this
time on the proposed retirement of 56 MOD A Reliability Standard
requirements.

DATES:  This rule is effective December 14, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Gandolfo (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards and Security, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\
the Commission approves 18 of the 76 Reliability Standard requirements
requested for retirement by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC).\2\ For the reasons discussed below, we determine
that the retirement of the 18 Reliability Standard requirements through
the retirement of four Reliability Standards and the modification of
five Reliability Standards is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\3\ The
Commission also approves the associated violation risk factors,
violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective dates
proposed by NERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \2\ NERC withdrew the originally requested retirement of
Reliability Standard VAR-001-6, Requirement R2 on May 14, 2020.
    \3\ The four Reliability Standards being eliminated in their
entirety are Reliability Standards FAC-013-2 (Assessment of Transfer
Capability for the Near-term Transmission Planning Horizon), INT-
004-3.1 (Dynamic Transfers), INT-010-2.1 (Interchange Initiation and
Modification for Reliability), MOD-020-0 (Providing Interruptible
Demands and Direct Control Load Management Data to System Operations
and Reliability Coordinators). The five modified Reliability
Standards approved herein are Reliability Standards INT-006-5
(Evaluation of Interchange Transactions), INT-009-3 (Implementation
of Interchange) and PRC-004-6 (Protection System Misoperation
Identification and Correction), IRO-002-7 (Reliability
Coordination--Monitoring and Analysis), TOP-001-5 (Transmission
Operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As set forth in the petitions, we conclude that the 18
Reliability Standard requirements: (1) Provide little or no reliability
benefit; (2) are administrative in nature or relate expressly to
commercial or business practices; or (3) are redundant with other
Reliability Standards. These justifications are consistent with the
Commission-approved rationale for retiring Reliability Standard
requirements articulated in prior proceedings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 138 FERC ]
61,193, at P 81 (March 2012 Order), order on reh'g and
clarification, 139 FERC ] 61,168 (2012); Electric Reliability
Organization Proposal to Retire Requirements in Reliability
Standards, Order No. 788, 145 FERC ] 61,147, at P 1 (2013) (stating
that the proposed retirements ``meet the benchmarks set forth in the
Commission's March 15, 2012 Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The approved retirements will enhance the efficiency of the
Reliability Standards program by reducing duplicative or otherwise
unnecessary regulatory burdens.
    4. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission also
proposed to approve the retirement of 56 requirements constituting the
so-called MOD A Reliability Standards.\5\ The NOPR indicated that, if
approved, the Commission intends to coordinate the effective dates for
the retirement of the MOD A Reliability Standards with successor North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) business practice standards.\6\
On March 30, 2020, NAESB submitted Version 003.3 of the Standards for
Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities
that, inter alia, include Modeling business practices. On July 16,
2020, the Commission issued a NOPR in Docket Nos. RM05-5-029 and RM05-
5-030 proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference,
with certain enumerated exceptions, NAESB's Version 003.3 Business
Practices.\7\ Comments on the NAESB NOPR are due on November 3,
2020.\8\ In light of these developments, this final rule does not
address the retirement of the MOD A Reliability Standards. The
Commission will determine the appropriate action regarding the proposed
retirement of the MOD A Reliability Standards at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Electric Reliability Organization Proposal to Retire
Requirements in Reliability Standards Under the NERC Standards
Efficiency Review, 170 FERC ] 61,032 (2020) (NOPR). The MOD A
Reliability Standards proposed for retirement are MOD-001-1a
(Available Transmission System Capability), MOD-004-1 (Capacity
Benefit Margin), MOD-008-1 (Transmission Reliability Margin
Calculation Methodology), MOD-028-2 (Area Interchange Methodology),
MOD-029-2a (Rated System Path Methodology), and MOD-030-3 (Flowgate
Methodology).
    \6\ NOPR, 170 FERC ] 61,032, at P 21, n.35.
    \7\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order No. 676,
85 FR 10571, 172 FERC ] 61,047 (2020).
    \8\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, 85 FR 55201 (September 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. While the Commission approves the 18 retirements, pursuant to
FPA section 215(d)(4), we remand proposed Reliability Standard FAC-008-
4.\9\ As discussed below, we are satisfied with NERC's justification
for retiring Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R7. However,
for the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded that it is
appropriate to retire Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R8.
Because the Commission, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(4), must remand
to NERC for further consideration a proposed modification to a
Reliability Standard that the Commission disapproves in whole or in
part, we remand proposed Reliability Standard FAC-008-4 to address our
concerns with the retirement of Requirement R8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Section 215 of the FPA

    6. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and
enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and
approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced in
the United States by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or by the
Commission independently.\10\ Pursuant to the requirements of FPA
section 215, the Commission established

a process to select and certify an ERO \11\ and, subsequently,
certified NERC as the ERO.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
    \11\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 114
FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 114 FERC ] 61,328
(2006).
    \12\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prior Retirements of Reliability Standard Requirements

    7. In the March 2012 Order, the Commission observed that NERC's
compliance program could be made more efficient by removing existing
requirements deemed unnecessary for reliability.\13\ The Commission
stated that if NERC believes certain Reliability Standards or
requirements should be revised or removed, ``we invite NERC to make
specific proposals to the Commission identifying the Standards or
requirements and setting forth in detail the technical basis for its
belief.'' \14\ Further, the Commission encouraged NERC ``to propose
appropriate mechanisms to identify and remove from the Commission-
approved Reliability Standards unnecessary or redundant requirements.''
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ March 2012 Order, 138 FERC ] 61,193 at P 81.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In response, in February 2013, NERC proposed to retire 34
requirements within 19 Reliability Standards based on the justification
that the requirements ``are redundant or otherwise unnecessary'' and
that ``violations of these requirements . . . pose a lesser risk to the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System.'' \16\ NERC explained that the
proposed retirements were based upon three major criteria: (1) Whether
a proposed retirement would create a reliability gap; (2) whether the
requirement in question is administrative; involves data collection,
retention, documentation, periodic updates or reporting; is a
commercial or business practice; or is redundant; and (3) consideration
of responses to seven questions regarding the proposed retirement,
including whether the requirement was part of a ``find, fix and track''
filing, the requirement's violation risk factor level, and whether the
requirement is part of on-going standards development project.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NERC, Petition, Docket No. RM13-8-000, at 2 (filed Feb. 28,
2013).
    \17\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On November 21, 2013, the Commission approved the retirements
that NERC proposed, and determined that the retirements ``meet the
benchmarks'' set forth in the March 2012 Order that ``requirements
proposed for retirement either: (1) Provide little protection for Bulk-
Power System reliability; or (2) are redundant with other aspects of
the Reliability Standards.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Electric Reliability Organization Proposal to Retire
Requirements in Reliability Standards, Order No. 788, 145 FERC ]
61,147 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NERC Standards Efficiency Review Project and Petitions

1. NERC Standards Efficiency Review Project
    10. NERC states that the proposed retirements are the product of
its Standards Efficiency Review (SER) Project. NERC explains that the
SER Project began in 2017 ``to achieve [NERC's] long-term strategic
goal of establishing risk-based controls to minimize [Bulk-Power
System] reliability risk while also driving operational efficiencies
and effectiveness.'' \19\ NERC states that in Phase 1 of the SER
Project, teams of industry experts conducted a risk-based analysis of
non-CIP Reliability Standards.\20\ The purpose of this review,
according to NERC, was ``to identify Reliability Standard requirements
that provide little or no benefit to reliability and should be
retired.'' \21\ NERC maintains that, unlike the periodic reviews \22\
of Reliability Standards performed by NERC pursuant to the NERC Rules
of Procedure, the SER Project involved ``exploring the relationships
between the different Reliability Standards in a deeper way than would
be feasible during a targeted periodic review . . . [and] allowed NERC
to identify requirements that are not necessary for reliability or that
are redundant to other requirements.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Docket No. RM19-16-000 Petition at 3; Docket No. RM19-17-
000 Petition at 4.
    \20\ NERC states that Phase 2 of the SER Project will ``consider
recommendations for Reliability Standard revisions that would
further improve the efficiency of the body of NERC Reliability
Standards, such as through consolidation of Reliability Standard
requirements . . . [and will] consider recommendations for
standards-based improvements that would further reduce
inefficiencies and promote effectiveness.'' Docket No. RM19-16-000
Petition at 6-7; Docket No. RM19-17-000 Petition at 7.
    \21\ Docket No. RM19-16-000 Petition at 5; Docket No. RM19-17-
000 Petition at 6.
    \22\ The NERC Rules of Procedure require a periodic review of
each Reliability Standard; and they provide for a five-year cyclical
review of Reliability Standards approved by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) and 10-year cyclical review for
Reliability Standards not approved by ANSI. See NERC Rules of
Procedure, Section 317 and Appendix 3A (Standards Process Manual),
section 13.0.
    \23\ Docket No. RM19-16-000 Petition at 5; Docket No. RM19-17-
000 Petition at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NERC contends that the SER Project ``was conducted in an open
and transparent manner, with broad industry participation.'' \24\ NERC
states that it initiated the standards development process to consider
the retirement recommendations generated by the SER Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Docket No. RM19-16-000 Petition at 5-6; Docket No. RM19-17-
000 Petition at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. IRO, TOP and VAR Petition (Docket No. RM19-16-000)
    12. On June 7, 2019, in Docket No. RM19-16-000, NERC submitted for
Commission approval new versions of three Reliability Standards: IRO-
002-7 (Reliability Coordination--Monitoring and Analysis), TOP-001-5
(Transmission Operations), and VAR-001-6 (Voltage and Reactive
Control).\25\ NERC explains that approval of the new versions would
result in the retirement of four requirements from the currently-
effective versions of the Reliability Standards.\26\ NERC proposes to
retire three of the existing requirements in Reliability Standards IRO-
002 and TOP-001 that require the reliability coordinator, transmission
operator, and balancing authority to have data exchange capabilities
with entities having data needed to perform operational planning
analyses and to develop operating plans for next-day operations. NERC
contends that these requirements are redundant and not necessary
``because the performance required by these requirements is inherent to
the performance of other Reliability Standard requirements.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ On May 14, 2020, NERC withdrew its request to retire
Reliability Standard VAR-001-6, Requirement R2.
    \26\ The revised versions of the IRO and TOP Reliability
Standards are not attached to this final rule. The complete text of
the Reliability Standards is available on the Commission's eLibrary
document retrieval system in Docket No. RM19-16-000 and is posted on
the ERO's website, http://www.nerc.com.
    \27\ Docket No. RM19-16-000 Petition at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In particular, NERC maintains that the data exchange capability
requirement in Reliability Standard IRO-002-5, Requirement R1 is
covered by Reliability Standard IRO-008-2, Requirement R1, which
obligates the reliability coordinator to perform operational planning
analyses to assess whether the planned operations for the next-day will
exceed System Operating Limits and Interconnection Reliability
Operating Limits within its Wide Area. NERC asserts that ``to perform
the required operational planning analyses, the Reliability Coordinator
must have the data it deems necessary from those entities that possess
it.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 14-15.

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

    14. Additionally, regarding data exchange, NERC cites Reliability
Standard IRO-010-2 (Reliability Coordinator Data Specification and
Collection) and its stated purpose of preventing instability,
uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages ``by ensuring the
Reliability Coordinator has the data it needs to monitor and assess the
operation of its Reliability Coordinator Area.'' \29\ NERC states that
under Reliability Standard IRO-010-2, Requirements R1, R2 and R3, the
reliability coordinator must specify the data necessary for it to
perform its operational planning analyses and provide the
specifications to the entities from which it needs data who then must
comply with the data request using a mutually agreeable format and
security protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. NERC states that the performance of Reliability Standard IRO-
010-2, Requirements R1, R2 and R3 is premised on the existence of data
exchange capabilities, ``regardless of whether a separate requirement
expressly requires the Reliability Coordinator to have data exchange
capabilities in place.'' \30\ NERC therefore asserts that Reliability
Standard IRO-002-5, Requirement R1 provides no additional reliability
benefit and ``is therefore unnecessary and redundant and should be
retired.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. NERC also proposes to retire Reliability Standards TOP-001-4,
Requirements R19 and R22. NERC explains that Requirements R19 and R22
of Reliability Standard TOP-001-4 require transmission operators and
balancing authorities respectively to have data exchange capabilities
with entities from which they need data to perform operational planning
analyses (transmission operators) and next-day Operating Plans
(balancing authorities). NERC notes, however, that Reliability Standard
TOP-002-4, Requirement R1 requires a transmission operator to perform
an operational planning analyses to determine whether next-day
operations within its area will exceed System Operating Limits. NERC
also states that TOP-002-4, Requirement R4 requires each balancing
authority to have a next-day Operating Plan addressing expected
generation resource commitment and dispatch, Interchange scheduling and
related matters. NERC asserts that to satisfy these requirements,
``each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority must have the data
it deems necessary from those entities that possess it.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. NERC also points to Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 (Operational
Reliability Data) whose purpose is ``to ensure that the Transmission
Operator and Balancing Authority have data needed to fulfill their
operational and planning responsibilities.'' NERC contends that the
requirements in Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 largely mirror the
requirements in Reliability Standard IRO-010-2 discussed above, and
thus, as with Reliability Standard IRO-010-2, transmission operators
and balancing authorities must have data exchange capabilities with its
reporting entities to satisfy the requirements of Reliability TOP-003-
3. For these reasons, NERC contends that Reliability Standards TOP-001-
4, Requirements R19 and R22 are unnecessary and redundant and should be
retired.
    18. NERC requests that the Commission approve the implementation
plan, attached to NERC's petition as Exhibit B, and the associated
violation risk factors and violation severity levels described in
Exhibit D. The implementation plan provides that proposed Reliability
Standards IRO-002-7 and TOP-001-5 would become effective on the first
day of the first calendar quarter that is three months after regulatory
approval. The currently effective versions of the Reliability Standards
would be retired immediately prior to the effective date of the revised
Reliability Standards. NERC explains that the requested timeline
accounts for the time entities will need to update their systems and
related documentation.
3. FAC, INT, MOD and PRC Petition (Docket No. RM19-17-000)
    19. On June 7, 2019, in Docket No. RM19-17-000, NERC submitted for
Commission approval the proposed retirement of 10 currently-effective
FAC, INT, MOD and PRC Reliability Standards in their entirety without
replacement.\33\ Additionally, NERC proposed modifications to four
Reliability Standards reflecting the retirement of certain requirements
from the currently-effective versions: FAC-008-4 (Facility Ratings),
INT-006-5 (Evaluation of Interchange Transactions), INT-009-3
(Implementation of Interchange) and PRC-004-6 (Protection System
Misoperation Identification and Correction).\34\ NERC asserts that its
proposals would not adversely impact reliability, but rather they
``would benefit reliability by allowing entities to focus their
resources on those Reliability Standard requirements that promote the
reliable operation and planning of the BPS [Bulk-Power System] and
avoid unnecessary regulatory burden.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Reliability Standards FAC-013-2 (Assessment of Transfer
Capability for the Near-term Transmission Planning Horizon), INT-
004-3.1 (Dynamic Transfers), INT-010-2.1 (Interchange Initiation and
Modification for Reliability), MOD-001-1a (Available Transmission
System Capability), MOD-004-1 (Capacity Benefit Margin), MOD-008-1
(Transmission Reliability Margin Calculation Methodology), MOD-020-0
(Providing Interruptible Demands and Direct Control Load Management
Data to System Operations and Reliability Coordinators), MOD-028-2
(Area Interchange Methodology), MOD-029-2a (Rated System Path
Methodology), and MOD-030-3 (Flowgate Methodology).
    \34\ The revised versions of the FAC, INT and PRC Reliability
Standards are not attached to this final rule. The complete text of
the Reliability Standards is available on the Commission's eLibrary
document retrieval system in Docket No. RM19-17-000 and is posted on
the ERO's website, http://www.nerc.com.
    \35\ Docket No. RM19-17-000 Petition at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Regarding the full FAC, INT, MOD and PRC Reliability Standards
proposed for retirement, NERC contends that they are not necessary and
that removing them would not adversely affect reliability. NERC states
that retirement of the ten full Reliability Standards is justified
because they are primarily administrative in nature or largely related
to commercial or business practices, and therefore no longer serve a
reliability purpose.\36\ For example, NERC states that the transfer
capability assessment required under Reliability Standard FAC-013-2
``serves only a market function'' and ``is not an indicator of [bulk
electric system] reliability.'' \37\ In supporting its conclusion that
Reliability Standard INT-010-2.1 primarily relates to commercial and
business practices, NERC notes that in 2013 the NERC Independent
Experts Review Panel recommended retiring the previous version of the
Reliability Standard ``due to overlap with the NAESB Electronic Tagging
Functional Specification.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Docket No. RM19-17-000 Petition at 13-24.
    \37\ Id. at 13.
    \38\ Id. at 16-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Similarly, regarding the MOD Reliability Standards, NERC states
that ``[Available Transfer Capability] and [Available Flowgate
Methodology], as well as e-Tags, are commercially-focused elements
facilitating interchange and balancing of interchange,'' and that
system operators maintain reliability by monitoring Real-time flows
based on System Operating Limits and Interconnection Reliability
Operating Limits.\39\ In particular, NERC

explains that information on Interruptible Demands and Direct Control
Load Management required under Reliability Standard MOD-020-0 is not
useful for transmission operators and reliability coordinators, ``who
must plan and operate the [Bulk-Power System] within System Operating
Limits and Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits under the TOP
and IRO Reliability Standards.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id. at 21.
    \40\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Regarding NERC's proposed modified Reliability Standards, NERC
states that the data provision obligations of currently effective
Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirements R7 and R8 are redundant
with Reliability Standards MOD-032-1, IRO-010-2 and TOP-003-3. NERC
asserts that Requirements R3.1, R4 and R5 of currently-effective
Reliability Standard INT-006-4 ``provide little, if any, benefit or
protection to the reliability operation of the [Bulk-Power System]''
\41\ and that the substance of Requirements R4 and R5 in particular
relate to commercial or business practices and are better addressed
through the balancing authority's e-Tag Authority Service.\42\ Also,
NERC states that Requirement R1 of currently-effective Reliability
Standard INT-009-2.1 is being revised to remove the reference to
Reliability Standard INT-010, which is also proposed for retirement,
and Requirement R2 is redundant with Reliability Standard BAL-005-1,
Requirement R7.\43\ Finally, NERC states that it has determined that
rather than the ``specific, recurring and inflexible timeframe'' set
forth in Requirement R4 of currently-effective Reliability Standard
PRC-004-5 for identifying the cause of a protection system
misoperation, ``it would be more effective to have entities investigate
the causes of misoperations according to their own internal control
policies and procedures.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 29.
    \42\ Id. at 29-31.
    \43\ Id. at 31-32.
    \44\ Id. at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. NERC requests that the Commission approve the implementation
plan, attached to NERC's petition as Exhibit B, and the associated
violation risk factors and violation severity levels, attached to
NERC's petition as Exhibit D, which are generally unchanged from the
currently effective versions. For the Reliability Standards retired in
their entirety, NERC proposes an effective date that is immediately
upon regulatory approval of the retirement. NERC also seeks to retire
the currently effective Reliability Standards FAC-008-3, INT-006-4,
INT-009-2.1, and PRC-004-5(i) immediately prior to the effective date
of their new versions.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    24. On January 23, 2020, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing to
approve the retirement of 74 of the 77 Reliability Standard
requirements requested by NERC. However, while proposing to approve the
majority of Reliability Standard requirement retirements NERC proposed,
the Commission expressed concern with NERC's justification for
retirement of Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R7 and R8
because those requirements did not appear to be entirely redundant of
other existing Reliability Standards. Accordingly, the Commission
sought more information from NERC regarding how other existing
Reliability Standards render Reliability Standard FAC-008-3,
Requirements R7 and R8 redundant, and how retiring those requirements
would not create a reliability gap.
    25. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from
NERC, Trade Associations (i.e., American Public Power Association,
Edison Electric Institute, Large Public Power Council, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, Transmission Access Policy Study
Group), Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power
Administration, and Jonathan Appelbaum. We address below the issues
raised in the NOPR and comments.

II. Discussion

A. Approved Retirement of 18 Reliability Standard Requirements

    26. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission
approves NERC's request to retire 18 Reliability Standard requirements
as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest. NERC's petitions provide an adequate basis to
conclude that the requirements proposed for retirement: (1) Provide
little or no reliability benefit; (2) are administrative in nature or
relate expressly to commercial or business practices; or (3) are
redundant with other Reliability Standards. NERC's justifications for
retiring the 18 requirements are consistent with the retirement
guidelines set forth by the Commission in Order No. 788 and with the
determination that ``requirements proposed for retirement can be
removed from the Reliability Standards with little effect on
reliability and an increase in efficiency of the ERO compliance
program.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Order No. 788, 145 FERC ] 61,147 at P 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. While the Commission approves the retirement of the 18
Reliability Standard requirements, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(4),
we remand proposed Reliability Standard FAC-008-4. As discussed below,
we are satisfied with the justification for retiring Reliability
Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R7 contained in NERC's comments.
However, for the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded that it
is appropriate to retire Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement
R8. Because the Commission, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(4), must
remand to NERC for further consideration a proposed modification to a
Reliability Standard that the Commission disapproves in whole or in
part, we remand proposed Reliability Standard FAC-008-4 to address our
concerns with the retirement of Requirement R8.

B. Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirements R7 and R8

1. NERC Petition
    28. Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirements R7 and R8 require
generator owners and transmission owners, respectively, to provide
facility ratings and related information to requesting reliability
coordinators, planning coordinators, transmission planners,
transmission owners and transmission operators. NERC contends that
requirements in Reliability Standards MOD-032-1, IRO-010-2, and TOP-
003-3 render the data provision obligations of Requirements R7 and R8
in Reliability Standard FAC-008-3 redundant and, therefore, unnecessary
for reliability.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Docket No. RM19-17-000 Petition at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. To support its redundancy claim, NERC explains that Reliability
Standard MOD-032-1 requires generator owners and transmission owners to
provide information on power capabilities and facility ratings
(Requirement R2) to enable planning coordinators and transmission
planners to ``jointly develop steady-state, dynamics, and short circuit
modeling data requirements and reporting procedures for the Planning
Coordinator's planning area'' (Requirement R1). NERC further explains
that Reliability Standard IRO-010-2 requires reliability coordinators
to maintain ``a documented specification for the data necessary to
perform its Operational Planning Analyses, Real-time monitoring, and
Real-time Assessments. This data necessarily includes Facility Ratings
as

inputs to System Operating Limit monitoring.'' \47\ NERC notes that
under Requirement R3 of IRO-010-2, the transmission owner and generator
owner must provide such data. Finally, NERC points out that Reliability
Standard TOP-003-3 requires the transmission operator to maintain data
specifications (Requirement R1) and the transmission owner and
generation owner to provide the requested data (Requirement R5).
Relying on this framework of data specification and provision, NERC
concludes that Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirements R7 and R8
``are now redundant to other more robust Reliability Standards and are
no longer needed for reliability.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. at 28.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NOPR
    30. While agreeing with NERC that Reliability Standards MOD-032-1,
IRO-010-2 and TOP-003-3 provide a basis for retiring certain elements
of Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirements R7 and R8, the
Commission stated that NERC's petition ``does not address other
elements of Requirements R7 and R8 that do not appear to be
redundant.'' \49\ The NOPR explained that Reliability Standard FAC-008-
3, Requirements R7 and R8 require generation owners and transmission
owners to provide facility ratings to several functional entity types,
including transmission owners. The Commission observed that the three
Reliability Standards NERC claims to render Requirements R7 and R8
redundant require generator owners and transmission owners to provide
facility ratings to other functional entities, including reliability
coordinators, planning coordinators, transmission planners, and
transmission operators, they do not require the provision of facility
ratings to transmission owners. The Commission expressed concern that
eliminating the mandatory exchange of facility-related information with
transmission owners could ``impact reliability since these requirements
ensure that all transmission owners have accurate facility-related
information in the models that they use to plan and operate the bulk
electric system.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ NOPR, 170 FERC ] 61,032 at P 31.
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The Commission also noted that Reliability Standards MOD-032-1,
IRO-010-2, and TOP-003-3 do not address sub-requirement R8.1.2 of
Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, relating to the identity of the next
most limiting equipment of a requested facility. Further, the
Commission observed that the Reliability Standards NERC claims are
redundant also do not account for sub-requirement R8.2, which requires
the identification and thermal rating of the existing next most
limiting equipment of facilities with a thermal rating that limits the
use of that facility by causing either an Interconnection Reliability
Operating Limit, a limitation of Total Transfer Capability, an
impediment to generator deliverability, or an impediment to service to
a major load center as specified in FAC-008-3 (Requirement R8.2).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ This requirement was developed in response to a directive
in Order No. 693. Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System, Order No. 693, 118 FERC ] 61,218, at P 756, order on reh'g,
Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007); see also NERC, Petition,
Docket No. RD11-10-000, at 11-13, 20-21 (filed Jun. 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Therefore, the Commission stated that Reliability Standard FAC-
008-3, Requirements R7 and R8 do not appear to be entirely redundant of
the Reliability Standards cited by NERC and, if retired, could create
reliability gaps. The Commission sought clarification from NERC because
the petition does not address these non-redundant elements of
Requirements R7 and R8.
3. Comments
    33. NERC, Trade Associations and Appelbaum support the retirement
of Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirements R7 and R8, maintaining
that transmission owners do not need facility ratings and related
information to perform their responsibilities.\52\ In their view,
transmission owners play a more limited role than the planning and
operation function of the other applicable entities in Reliability
Standard FAC-008-3. NERC notes that the NERC Glossary describes
transmission owner as an ``entity that owns and maintains transmission
facilities'' and that a transmission owner is ``not the functional
entity directly responsible for complying with Reliability Standards
for planning and operating the Bulk Power System.'' \53\ Additionally,
Appelbaum notes that ``in many cases'' transmission owner and
generation owner interconnection agreements exist and contain
provisions governing how facilities are operated and maintained,
including the methodology and responsibility for rating facilities.\54\
By contrast Bonneville commented, without elaboration, that it agrees
that Reliability Standards FAC-008, Requirements R7 and R8 should be
retained.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As discussed below, Appelbaum supports retaining sub-
requirement R8.2.
    \53\ NERC Comments at 8 (citing NERC Glossary of Terms Used in
NERC Reliability Standards).
    \54\ Appelbaum Comments at 3.
    \55\ Bonneville Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. NERC and Trade Associations assert that entities with the
responsibility to plan and operate the Bulk-Power System (i.e.,
transmission operators and transmission planners) obtain the
information they need under Reliability Standards MOD-032-1 and TOP-
003-3, and thus they do not require Reliability Standard FAC-008-3,
Requirements R7 and R8.\56\ Trade Associations state that ``from a grid
reliability perspective, it is the responsible Transmission Planner and
Transmission Operator that need the facility ratings because they are
accountable for the reliable planning and operation of the bulk
electric system, not the Transmission Owner.'' \57\ Further, Trade
Associations note that the Commission previously approved the
retirement of Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R4, which had
similar obligations to Requirements R7 and R8, based on the
Commission's conclusion that the requirement to make available such
facility ratings information was an administrative task that provides
little protection for bulk electric system reliability.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NERC Comments at 8; Trade Association Comments at 6.
    \57\ Trade Association Comments at 7.
    \58\ Id. (citing Order No. 788, 145 FERC ] 61,147 at P 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. In response to the Commission's concerns regarding Reliability
Standard FAC-008-3, sub-requirements 8.1.2 and 8.2, NERC and Trade
Associations assert that the ``catch-all'' provision in Reliability
Standard MOD-032-1, Attachment 1 Data Reporting Requirements, requires
transmission owners and generation owners to provide ``other
information requested by the planning coordinator or transmission
provider necessary for modeling purposes,'' which includes data
described in sub-requirements 8.1.2 and 8.2.\59\ Further, NERC and
Trade
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ NERC Comments at 8-9; Trade Association Comments at 9.

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

Associations assert that reliability coordinators and transmission
system operators obtain this information under the data specification
requirements in Reliability Standards IRO-010-2 and TOP-003-3.\60\ NERC
concludes that ``[n]ow that these broader data specification standards
are in place, NERC has identified no reliability need to maintain
additional requirements expressly requiring the provision of this data
in the FAC-008 standards.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ NERC Comments at 9; Trade Associations Comments at 8-9
(``Reliability Standard TOP-003-3 (Operational Reliability Data)
Requirements R3 and R5 require the provision of such information
through data specifications that are issued by Transmission
Operators.'')
    \61\ NERC Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Appelbaum contends that sub-requirement 8.2 should be retained,
however, because it ``support[s] reliable operations under very limited
circumstances and very limited locations, yet it is important enough to
retain.'' \62\ He explains that sub-requirement 8.2 focuses on specific
circumstances, wherein having knowledge of the increase in facility
rating based on the next most limiting equipment improves system
operations, and therefore reliability, and ``adds resilience to the
operation of the Bulk Power System.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Appelbaum Comments at 7 (referring to load pockets that
contain critical infrastructure, dense populations, or have large
financial impacts).
    \63\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Commission Determination
    37. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(4), we remand proposed
Reliability Standard FAC-008-4. As discussed below, we are satisfied
with NERC's justification for retiring Reliability Standard FAC-008-3,
Requirement R7. However, for the reasons discussed below, we are not
persuaded that it is appropriate to retire Reliability Standard FAC-
008-3, Requirement R8. Because the Commission, pursuant to FPA section
215(d)(4), must remand to NERC for further consideration a proposed
modification to a Reliability Standard that the Commission disapproves
in whole or in part, we remand proposed Reliability Standard FAC-008-4
to address our concerns with the retirement of Requirement R8.
    38. Regarding Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R7, we
are persuaded that retiring Requirement R7 will not result in a
reliability gap because Requirement R7 is redundant or otherwise
provides little or no reliability benefit. We agree with NERC that,
unlike transmission operators and transmission planners that need and
will continue to receive facility ratings information under other
Reliability Standards, transmission owners do not need to exchange
facility ratings because they have a more limited functional role that
does not involve planning and operating the Bulk-Power System. Only
Bonneville, a registered transmission owner, supported retaining
Requirement R7, and no transmission owner submitted comments indicating
that it needed the facility ratings information required under
Requirement R7.\64\ Moreover, the Commission did not direct the
inclusion of transmission owners in Requirement R7. Reliability
Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R7 was formerly designated Reliability
Standard FAC-009-1, Requirement R2. The Commission approved Reliability
Standard FAC-009-1, Requirement R2 in Order No. 693 and did so without
requiring the sharing of facility ratings information with transmission
owners.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ While Bonneville submitted comments supporting the
retention of Requirement R7, Bonneville did not elaborate on its
position.
    \65\ Order No. 693, 118 FERC ] 61,218 at PP 772-774. NERC
subsequently added transmission owners as recipients, without
elaboration, when NERC revised Reliability Standard FAC-008 and
retired Reliability Standard FAC-009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. While we determine that the retirement of Requirement R7 is
appropriate, we are not convinced that the retirement of sub-
requirements R8.1.2 and 8.2 will not result in a reliability gap. By
retiring sub-requirements R8.1.2 and 8.2, transmission owners will no
longer be required to communicate ratings information for solely owned
limiting and next most limiting equipment present on jointly-owned
facilities. Without ratings information on limiting and next most
limiting equipment, transmission owners could lack the necessary
information to correctly calculate the ratings for their jointly-owned
facilities. The Commission recognized the importance of this type of
information exchange in Order No. 693 by directing NERC to require the
sharing of information regarding the most limiting and next most
limiting equipment when requested.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Order No. 693, 118 FERC ] 61,218 at PP 755-762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. The transmission owner's obligation under Reliability Standard
FAC-008-3, Requirement R3 is also impacted by the proposed retirement
of Requirement R8. Reliability Standard FAC-008-3, Requirement R3
requires transmission owners to have a documented facility ratings
methodology for solely and jointly owned facilities that, pursuant to
Requirement R3.3, includes a ``statement that a Facility Rating shall
respect the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual
equipment that comprises that Facility.'' In order to rate equipment
accurately to avoid mis-ratings of jointly-owned transmission lines,
the transmission owner needs information about the co-owner's most
limiting equipment on shared facilities. Therefore, under these
circumstances, we conclude that Requirement R8 is needed to ensure that
limiting and next limiting equipment is identified and communicated.

III. Information Collection Statement

    41. The information collection requirements contained in this final
rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\67\ OMB's
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\68\ Upon approval of a collection
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \68\ 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. The Commission estimates that the final rule, which would
retire 18 requirements of Reliability Standards without adding any new
obligations on registered entities, would result in a total reduction
in burden for industry of 42,907.44 hours. The Commission based the
burden reduction estimates on staff experience, knowledge, and
expertise.

                                              Reductions Due to Final Rule in Docket Nos. RM19-16 & RM19-17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                          Average
                                                                                annual      Total number  of     number of     Total burden
    Reliability standard & requirement            Type \69\ and number  of entity        responses per      responses      burden hours        hours
                                                                                entity                         per response
                                            (1).......................................             (2)   (1) * (2) = (3)             (4)     (3) * (4) =
                                                                                (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FERC-725A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAC-013-2.................................  RC (12)...................................            8.33               100           26.67           2,667
INT-006-4 R3.1, R4, R5, R5.1, R5.2, R5.3,   BA/TSP (169)..............................               1               169            56.3         9,514.7
 R5.4, R5.5.
INT-004-3.1...............................  BA (97)...................................               1                97            56.3         5,461.1
INT-010-2.1...............................  BA(97)....................................               1                97            56.3         5,461.1
INT-009-2.1 R2............................  BA (97)...................................               1                97            56.3         5,461.1
MOD-020-0.................................  TP/RP/DP/BA (767).........................               1               767            14.4        11,044.8
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total for FERC-725A...............  1,239.....................................  ..............             1,327  ..............        39,609.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FERC-725A(1C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOP-001-4 R19 & R22.......................  BA/TO/GO/DP (1,704).......................             .25               426             0.8           340.8
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total for FERC-725A(1C)...........  1,704.....................................  ..............               426  ..............           340.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       FERC-725G1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-004-5(i) R4...........................  TO/GO/DP (1,607)..........................             .41               659            4.36        2,873.24
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total for FERC-725G1..............  1,607.....................................  ..............               659  ..............        2,873.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FERC-725Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRO-002-6 R1..............................  RC (12)...................................            1.17                14            5.97            83.6
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Total for FERC-725Z...............  12........................................  ..............                14  ..............            83.6
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Reductions Due to Final Rule  ..........................................  ..............             2,426  ..............       42,907.44
         in RM19-16 & RM19-17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Titles: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System; FERC-725A(1C), Mandatory Reliability Standards for Bulk-
Power System: Reliability Standard TOP-001-4; FERC-725G1, Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: Reliability Standard
PRC-004-5(i); FERC-725Z, Mandatory Reliability Standards: IRO
Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ RC=Reliability Coordinator; BA=Balancing Authority;
TSP=Transmission Service Provider; TO=Transmission Owner;
GO=Generator Owner; DP=Distribution Provider; TP=Transmission
Provider; and RP=Resource Planner. Our estimates are based on the
NERC Compliance Registry of July 17, 2020, which indicates there are
974 entities registered as GOs, 321 entities registered as TOs, 97
entities registered as BAs, 72 entities registered as TSPs, 198
entities registered as TPs312 entities registered as DPs, 160
entities registered as RPs, and 12 entities registered as RCs within
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: Reductions to Existing Collections of Information FERC-
725A, FERC-725A(1C), and FERC-725Z; and Elimination of Collections of
Information, and FERC-725G1.
    OMB Control Nos: 1902-0244 (FERC-725A); 1902-0298 (FERC-
725A(1C));1902-0284 (FERC-725G1); and 1902-0276 (FERC-725Z).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion (and proposed for deletion).
    43. Necessity of the Information: This proceeding approves the
retirement of four Reliability Standards in their entirety and five
revised Reliability Standards, reflecting a total of 18 retired
requirements identified by NERC. The approved retirements either: (1)
Provide little or no reliability benefit; (2) are administrative in
nature or relate expressly to commercial or business practices; or (3)
are redundant with other Reliability Standards.
    44. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed NERC's proposal
and determined that its action is necessary to implement section 215 of
the FPA. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal
review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden
reduction estimates associated with the information requirements
approved for retirement.
    45. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    46. Comments concerning the information collections and
requirements approved for retirement in this final rule and the
associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this
docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons,
comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the appropriate OMB
Control Number(s) and Docket Nos. RM19-16-000 and RM19-17-000 in your
submission.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    47. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \70\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rulemakings that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a rule and that minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small business.\71\ The Small Business
Administration has established size standards, for the types of
affected entities (noted in the table above), that range from a maximum
of 250-1,000 employees for an entity and its affiliates to be
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \71\ 13 CFR 121.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. The Commission estimates the total industry reduction in burden
for all entities (large and small) to be 42,907.44 hours (or
approximately 18 hours (rounded) per response). The Commission believes
that this will reduce burden and cost for all affected entities.
    49. Based on the information above, the Commission certifies that
the reductions will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, no initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

V. Environmental Analysis

    50. 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.\72\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\73\ The actions approved here
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \73\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    51. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    52. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    53. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    54. This final rule is effective December 14, 2020. 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. This final rule is being
submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: September 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    Note: the following Appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix

Commenters

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Abbreviation                          Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERC.........................  North American Electric Reliability
                                Corporation.
Trade Associations...........  American Public Power Association, Edison
                                Electric Institute, Large Public Power
                                Council, National Rural Electric
                                Cooperative Association, Transmission
                                Policy Study Group.
Bonneville...................  Bonneville Power Administration.
WAPA.........................  Western Area Power Administration.
Appelbaum....................  Jonathan Appelbaum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-20972 Filed 10-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 57828-57829]
[DOCID:fr22se10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight
Engineers and Flight Navigators

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. Information collected is used to determine certification
eligibility of Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2120-0007.
    Title: Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8400-3.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: FAA Form 8400-3, Application for an Airman Certificate
and/or Rating (for flight engineer and flight navigator) and
applications for approval of related training courses are submitted to
FAA for evaluation. The information is reviewed to determine applicant
eligibility and compliance with prescribed provisions of FAR Part

63, Certification: Flight Crewmembers Other Than Pilots.
    Respondents: Approximately 1,036 flight engineers and flight
navigators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 505 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 15, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-23634 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52852-52853]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18896]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0445; FRL-9950-09]

Summitec Corporation, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint
Venture; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture in
accordance with the CBI regulations. Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture have
been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this
information will enable Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors
Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture to fulfill the
obligations of the contract.

DATES: Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors Versar, Inc., and
CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture will be given access to this information
on or before August 15, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Steadman, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0445, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP-W-16-019, Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture, will
perform critical reviews of EPA designated studies submitted by the
registrants and/or from the open literature. These reviews will be
provided to the contract officer's representative in data evaluation
records or other similar study data evaluation records or systems, as
applicable. A template of the data evaluation records format provided
to the contractor will be followed in the preparation of data
evaluation records. See the data evaluation records templates for test
guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/study-profile-templates. Specific guidance for completing each section is provided in
the data evaluation records templates. Each review will encompass all
items in the study that contribute to the overall knowledge of the
pesticide, and will include the following:
     An evaluation of the accuracy, credibility and scientific
validity of that study;
     its suitability for meeting specific data requirements;
     any necessary graphic displays of data, and/or summary
tables illustrating results of the study;

     sound scientific rationale for the conclusions reached on
specific studies; and
     clarity in data presentation and adherence to the template
and overall guidance.
    OPP has determined that access by Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture to
information on all pesticide chemicals is necessary for the performance
of this contract. Some of this information may be entitled to
confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under
FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2) the
contract with Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar,
Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture, prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture are
required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI
will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or
compromise. No information will be provided to Summitec Corporation and
its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture
until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied.
Records of information provided to Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture will be
maintained by EPA project officers for this contract. All information
supplied to Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc.,
and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture by EPA for use in connection with
this contract will be returned to EPA when Summitec Corporation and its
subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture have
completed their work.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: August 3, 2016.
Delores Barber,
 Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-18896 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P