[Federal Register: February 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 20)]
[Notices]
[Page 5063-5066]
[DOCID:fr01fe10-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC10-729-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-729); Comment
Request; Submitted for OMB Review

January 22, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission received twenty comments in response to the Federal
Register notice (74 FR 52796, 10/14/2009). FERC has summarized and
addressed the commenters' suggestions below and in its submission to
OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by March 3,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include OMB Control Number 1902-0238 as a
point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at
202-395-4638. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC10-729-
001. Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format.
Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions (including the required number of copies and acceptable
filing formats) are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-
guide/electronic-media.asp. To file the document electronically, access
the Commission's Web site and click on Documents & Filing, E-Filing
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow the
instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic

acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC-729 (``Electric Transmission
Facilities,'' OMB Control No. 1902-0238) covers the reporting
requirements \1\ of 18 CFR part 50, and, as relates to transmission
facilities, 18 CFR 380.3(c)(3), 380.5(b) (14), 380.6(a)(5), 380.15(d),
and 380.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These requirements were promulgated by Order 689, issued
November 16, 2006, in Docket No. RM06-12, in accordance with section
1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005: (a) to establish filing
requirements and procedures for entities seeking to construct or to
modify electric transmission facilities, and (b) to coordinate the
processing of Federal authorizations and the environmental review of
electric transmission facilities in designated national interest
electric transmission corridors. (Order 689 is available in FERC's
eLibrary at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/
intermediate.asp?link_file=yes&doclist=4455911.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of these regulations is to implement the Commission's
mandates under Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) section 1221
which authorizes the Commission to issue permits under Federal Power
Act (FPA) section 216(b) for electric transmission facilities and the
Commission's delegated responsibility to coordinate all other federal
authorizations under FPA section 216(h). The related FERC regulations
seek to develop a timely review process for siting of proposed electric
transmission facilities. The regulations provide for, among other
things, an extensive pre-application process that will facilitate
maximum participation from all interested entities and individuals to
provide them with a reasonable opportunity to present their views and
recommendations, with respect to the need for and impact of the
facilities, early in the planning stages of the proposed facilities as
required under FPA section 216(d).
    Additionally, under FPA section 216(b)(1)(C), FERC has the
authority to issue a permit to construct electric transmission
facilities if a state has withheld approval for more than a year or has
conditioned its approval in such a manner that it will not
significantly reduce transmission congestion or is not economically
feasible. FERC envisions that, under certain circumstances, the
Commission's review of the proposed facilities may take place after one
year of the state's review. Accordingly, under section 50.6(e)(3) the
Commission will not accept applications until one year after the
state's review and then from applicants who can demonstrate that a
state may withhold or condition approval of proposed facilities to such
an extent that the facilities will not be constructed.\2\ In cases
where FERC's jurisdiction rests on FPA section 216(b)(1)(C),\3\ the
pre-filing process should not commence until one year after the
relevant State applications have been filed. This will give the States
one full year to process an application without any intervening Federal
proceedings, including both the pre-filing and application processes.
Once that year is complete, an applicant may seek to commence FERC's
pre-filing process. Thereafter, once the pre-filing process is
complete, the applicant may submit its application for a construction
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ However, the Commission will not issue a permit authorizing
construction of the proposed facilities until, among other things,
it finds that the state has, in fact, withheld approval for more
than a year or had so conditioned its approval.
    \3\ In all other instances (i.e., where the state does not have
jurisdiction to act or otherwise to consider interstate benefits, or
the applicant does not qualify to apply for a permit with the State
because it does not serve end use customers in the State), the pre-
filing process may be commenced at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The environmental report includes information on areas such as:
aquatic life, wildlife, and vegetation and the expected impacts on
them; cultural resources; socioeconomics; geological resources; soils,
land use, recreation, and aesthetics; alternatives; buildings; and
reliability and safety.
    Public Comments and FERC Responses. A summary of the public
comments filed on the FERC-729 reporting requirements, FERC's response,
and proposed changes to the requirements follow.
    a. Comment: We received several public comments on the Commission's
transmission siting policy and process, including FERC's jurisdiction,
stakeholder participation, environmental impacts, health and safety
issues, and alternatives. We also received comments in regard to the
Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) Project, transmission
planning, cost allocation, cyber security, physical and national
security, and public access to documents.
    FERC Response: The purpose of Docket No. IC10-729 is to seek
comment on the generic information collection requirements imposed on
applicants for Electric Transmission Facilities. (The request for
comments is described more fully in the last paragraph in both the 60-
day Notice (at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/
opennat.asp?fileID=12167427) and this Notice.) Docket No. IC10-729 does
not address case-specific transmission applications; rather it
addresses the information requirements the agency imposes on applicants
in general. FERC's transmission siting process is detailed in Parts 50
and 380 of the Commission's regulations, and further information is on
our Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/
electric/guide-transmission.pdf. In addition, currently, there are no
requests for the Commission to site transmission facilities in Maryland
or in any other state, including the PATH Project. (Specific PATH
Project information, including the status of applications in Maryland,
Virginia, and West Virginia, can be found on the Project's Internet Web
site at http://www.pathtransmission.com.)
    Docket No. IC10-729 is not an appropriate venue to address those
comments, but the appropriate FERC offices have been made aware of
those comments.
    b. Comment: Applicants should detail efforts undertaken to contact
public and private organizations that actively engage in the protection
of historic, cultural, natural, and scenic resources. Responses to
these contacts should be included in the pre-filing process.
    FERC response: Section 50.5(c)(3)-(5) of the Commission's
regulations requires the applicant to provide a list of the permitting
entities responsible for conducting separate federal permitting and
environmental reviews and authorizations, including how the applicant
intends to account for each of the relevant entity's permitting and
environmental review schedules and when the applicant proposes to file
with these entities. The applicant must also provide a list of all
other stakeholders that have been contacted, or have contacted the
applicant, about the project and a description of what other work has
already been completed, including contacting stakeholders and agency
and Indian tribe consultations. FERC also requires communication
between applicants and stakeholders to be documented throughout the
pre-filing process. Section 50.5(e)(8) requires the applicant to file
monthly status reports during the pre-filing process detailing project
activities, including stakeholder communications.
    c. Comment: Applicants should include an explanation of which
mitigation measure was chosen and why others were rejected.
    FERC response: FERC staff reviews the applicant's proposed
mitigation

measures to ensure that they are appropriate and adequate for the
corresponding environmental impact. The applicant is required to
develop and propose mitigation measures in the resource reports
tailored to a specific environmental impact. To the extent that FERC
staff determines that a rejected mitigation measure warrants further
evaluation, the applicant may be required to provide additional
information to support its decision. If necessary, FERC staff can also
require additional mitigation to address an impact. The applicant must
follow all staff-recommended mitigation measures, included as specific
conditions in the Commission's authorization.
    d. Comment: Commenters suggest that the applicant should address
the range of potential environmental impacts (e.g., air pollution)
associated with changes in electric generation levels and sources.
    FERC response: Section 380.16(b) of the Commission's regulations
requires each of the applicant's resource reports to address conditions
or resources that are likely to be directly or indirectly affected by
the project, and identify cumulative effects resulting from existing or
reasonably foreseeable projects. This would include environmental
impacts associated with changes in electric generation levels and
sources.
    e. Comment: More information is needed from electric utilities.
Information collected during meetings with utilities should be shared
with public stakeholders. Without full disclosure to the public, the
permit process is not effective, efficient, or timely.
    FERC response: As indicated in the Commission's Notice, applicants
are required to provide information on certain resource areas
(including aquatic life; wildlife; vegetation; cultural resources,
socioeconomics, geological resources, soils; land use; recreation;
aesthetics; alternatives; buildings; and reliability and safety). This
information is posted on FERC's eLibrary system (at http://
www.ferc.gov) and is available for public review. FERC staff conducts
reviews of an applicant's submission to determine compliance with the
Commission's regulations. If the information is deemed deficient,
Commission staff can seek additional information from an applicant. All
information requests, subsequent responses, as well as discussions with
the applicant, Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes on
matters related to the merits of an application are documented and
placed on FERC's eLibrary for public access and review.
    f. Comment: What is FERC's estimate for the average cost and time
required for FERC staff and expert consultants to evaluate the
information collected for a single utility application? What is FERC's
estimate for the average cost and time for a public stakeholder using
industry experts to evaluate the information in a utility's
application?
    FERC response: The Commission's estimates for the burden and cost
imposed on industry address the annual averages for all of the
applications FERC expects to receive. The figures are estimated annual
averages for industry and include the cost and burden for staff and
expert consultants, as well as other needed resources (such as
information technology; administrative, legal, and management
resources). The estimated average annual industry burden appears below,
in the section titled ``Burden Statement.'' Additional details on the
industry burden and cost are included in the supporting statement, that
FERC is submitting to OMB, in Questions 12 and 13. After publication of
this Notice in the Federal Register, the supporting statement will be
submitted to OMB.\4\ FERC's estimates for the government's average
annual cost for FERC-729 include the staff and other resources (such as
consultants, administrative, legal, management, and information
technology resources) for the review and processing of the filings, and
the OMB clearance for the filing requirements. Additional details on
the government cost are included in the supporting statement that FERC
is submitting to OMB in Question 14.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The supporting statement will then be available at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by selecting ``Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission'' from the drop-down picklist under
``Currently under Review.'' Then go to the entry for FERC-729 (OMB
Control No. 1902-0238) and click on the link to the ``ICR Reference
Number''. Then click on the link labeled ``View Supporting Statement
and Other Documents,'' and the link under ``Supporting Statement
A''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the related guidance
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), `` `burden' means time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, or provide information to or for a Federal agency'' [44
U.S.C. 3502(2)]. The burden and cost estimates include the time and
effort required to plan, develop, prepare, and fulfill an information
collection, and to respond to the agency's requirement. The PRA does
not require burden estimates for the cost and time for a public
stakeholder to evaluate a particular utility's application to the
agency.
    g. Comment: FERC must require utilities to provide reasonable
alternatives instead of allowing utilities to submit a single
monolithic proposal.
    FERC response: FERC requires utilities to provide and analyze
reasonable alternatives at multiple points in the pre-filing process.
Section 50.5(e)(5) of the Commission's regulations requires the
applicant to file a summary of the project alternatives considered or
under consideration within 30 days of initiating the pre-filing
process. Section 380.16(k) requires the applicant to submit an entire
resource report dedicated to alternatives and the associated
environmental impacts. This resource report would describe a variety of
alternatives, including, where appropriate, alternatives other than new
transmission lines.
    h. Comment: Utilities currently lack commitment to work with public
stakeholders, do not maintain open communication with public
stakeholders or respond to public stakeholder questions, do not plan
for public stakeholder input, do not adequately explain mitigation,
benefits, and alternatives. The proper preparation and stakeholder
involvement in the pre-filing process can make the entire process
easier, quicker, and ultimately less expensive.
    FERC response: The Commission's regulations require an applicant to
develop and implement a Project Participation Plan to ensure
stakeholders have access to accurate and timely information on the
proposed project and to provide a forum for resolving issues. This plan
identifies specific tools and actions to facilitate stakeholder
communications, including a single point of contact within the company
and a description and schedule explaining how the applicant intends to
respond to requests for information from the public as well as federal,
state, and tribal permitting agencies. Public stakeholders also have
the opportunity to interact directly with an applicant at open houses.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date for the FERC-729, with no changes.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of      Average burden
            FERC data collection                respondents     responses per      hours per       Total annual
                                                  annually        respondent        response       burden hours
                                                         (1)              (2)              (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-729....................................              10                1            9,600           96,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These figures may not be exact, due to rounding.

    The total estimated annual cost burden \5\ to respondents is
$7,680,000 (96,000 hours x $80 per hour \5\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics ``Occupational
Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2008-09 Edition,'' Occupational Employment
Statistics (Occupational Employment and Wages, for May 2008, for
Lawyers (23-1011), posted at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes231011.htm), FERC is using $80 per hour. Other professions (such
as engineers and administrators) are involved in preparing the
filing. We are using $80 per hour as a high-end figure to include
all of the professions involved with preparation of the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1979 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21290-21295]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08275]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0985; FRL-9944-84-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
disapprove the portion of a Texas State

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining to interstate transport
of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval will establish a
2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) for Texas to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment
and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other
states, unless the EPA approves a SIP that meets these requirements.
Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Texas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2012-0985, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first
two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission
from Texas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require that
each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any emissions activity within the state from emitting air
pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or
``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard
in any other state.
    Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by
chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight.
Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor
vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major
sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone
formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are
generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also
increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX
emissions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 75706, 75711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone in several past
regulatory actions. The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998,
addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ The rule required 22 states and the
District of Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX
emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997
PM2.5 and ozone standards under the good neighbor provision
and required SIP revisions in 28 states and the District of Columbia to
limit NOX and SO2 emissions that contribute to
nonattainment of those standards.\3\ CAIR was remanded to the EPA by
the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. In response to the remand of
CAIR, the EPA promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on
July 6, 2011, to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern
\4\ portion of the United States.\5\ With respect to ozone, CSAPR
limited ozone season nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from
electric generating units (EGUs). CSAPR addressed interstate transport
as to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, but did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998).
    \3\ Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12,
2005).
    \4\ When we discuss the eastern United States we mean the
contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 western states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
    \5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Texas SIP Revision Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On December 13, 2012, Texas submitted a SIP revision addressing
certain CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This
action concerns the portion of the December 13, 2012, SIP submittal
pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement to address
the interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. In a separate action, we disapproved
the portion of the SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to address the interstate transport of
air pollution which will interfere with other states' programs for
visibility protection (81 FR 296, January 5, 2016). We proposed to
approve the other portions of the infrastructure SIP submittal on
February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6483).
    In the portion of its SIP submittal addressing interstate
transport, Texas provided an analysis of monitoring data, wind
patterns, emissions data and

emissions controls. Texas notes that, at the time of the SIP submittal,
it had not yet implemented control measures in its two areas designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the nonattainment SIP
was not due until 2015. Texas cited numerous control measures that were
implemented to address prior ozone NAAQS. Texas also includes 1990-2010
design value data for the areas designated nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS in Texas and in nearby nonattainment areas and notes that
design values have generally decreased since 2000. Texas focuses on
wind patterns and the distance between in-state ozone nonattainment
areas (Dallas-Fort Worth and the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria) and the
closest designated nonattainment areas (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and
Memphis, Tennessee) in other states, and monitored data in between
these areas. Texas concluded that it is difficult to determine how much
ozone at the out-of-state nonattainment areas is due to transport of
ozone and how much is due to other sources of ozone precursors.
    Texas's analysis includes 2010 8-hour ozone design values from
monitors in states located in the EPA Region 6.\6\ Texas summarized
NOX emission trends for Texas EGUs from 1995-2011 and
discusses how federal rulemakings, such as CAIR and the CSAPR affected
EGU emissions. Lastly, Texas described additional non-EGU control
measures and SIPs that reduce NOX and VOC emissions within
the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These states are Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas concluded in its analysis that (based on monitoring data) due
to (1) decreases in ozone design values, and (2) existing control
measures, emissions from sources within the state do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. A copy of the Texas SIP submittal
may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2012-0985.

III. The EPA's Evaluation

    As we noted above, the Texas SIP submittal included an analysis of
monitoring data, wind patterns, emissions data and emissions controls.
The information provided in the Texas analysis is helpful in assessing
past air quality and we agree that ozone concentrations have decreased
since 2000. However, we disagree with Texas's conclusion concerning
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Texas limits its discussion of data only to areas designated
nonattainment in states that are geographically closest to Texas
(Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin). This approach is
incomplete for two reasons. First, transported emissions may cause an
area to measure exceedances of the standard even if that area is not
formally designated nonattainment by the EPA. However, Texas only
evaluated its potential impact on the nearest designated nonattainment
areas in other states without considering potential exceedances in
other areas not designated nonattainment. Thus, Texas did not fully
evaluate whether emissions from the state significantly contribute to
nonattainment in other states.
    Second, in remanding CAIR to the EPA in the North Carolina
decision, the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must
give the ``interfere with maintenance'' clause of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``independent significance'' by evaluating the
impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while
currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment,
considering historic variability.\7\ Texas does not give the
``interfere with maintenance'' clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
independent significance because its analysis did not attempt to
evaluate the potential impact of Texas emissions on areas that are
currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining
that air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 531 F.3d at 910-11 (holding that the EPA must give
``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, in addition to being incomplete, the EPA has recently
shared new technical information with states to facilitate efforts to
address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
which contradicts the conclusions of the Texas analysis. The EPA
developed this technical information following the same approach used
to evaluate interstate transport in CSAPR in order to support the
recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule''). In
CSAPR, we used detailed air quality analyses to determine whether an
eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality problems was at or
above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution did not exceed the
specified air quality screening threshold, the state was not considered
``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality screening threshold of one
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one
percent was appropriate. The EPA evaluated the comments received and
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, we compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, the EPA determined
that it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone
even at low levels. The EPA also determined that a lower threshold such
as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the
overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution
transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent
level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to
emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that
individually have a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator
that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air
quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that

selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
    In the final CSAPR, we determined that one percent was a reasonable
choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind
states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels
of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's previous
use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single ``bright
line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state
was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and
then compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded that this
approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone
was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent
with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and
because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future
ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. The EPA has subsequently proposed to
use the same threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport
with respect to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule.
    In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data availability (NODA) for the
EPA's updated ozone transport modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
public review and comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), and (2)
proposed the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The
CSAPR Update Rule would further restrict ozone season NOX
emissions from EGUs in 23 states, including Texas, beginning in the
2017 ozone season. Our proposal also addresses a 2015 D.C. Circuit
court decision that largely upheld CSAPR, but that, among other things,
remanded without vacatur the NOX ozone-season emission
budgets for EGUs in Texas and 10 other states that were established in
CSAPR to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EME Homer City v. EPA, [795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Circuit 2015)]
(July 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support
the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for
the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate
attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through
2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, the EPA proposed that 2017 is an
appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used
photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at
air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used nationwide
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this
SIP action.
    The modeling data released in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule
are the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As
discussed in the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air quality modeling
(1) identified locations in the U.S. where the EPA expects
nonattainment or maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the
projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind
ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30,
December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, the EPA proposed to use a
threshold of 1 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion)
to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptors. The EPA proposed that eastern states with
contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this screening
threshold are considered ``linked'' to that receptor, and were analyzed
further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary to address
interstate transport to these receptors.
    Table 1 is a summary of the air quality modeling results for Texas
from Table V.D-1 of the proposed CSAPR Update Rule.\9\ As the state's
downwind contribution to proposed nonattainment and maintenance
receptors exceeded the threshold, the analysis for the proposal
concluded that Texas emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
other states. Texas emissions were linked to eastern nonattainment
receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and to maintenance receptors in
Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania (Tables
V.D-2 and V.D-3, 80 FR 75706, 75728-30).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 80 FR 75706, 75727-28.
    \10\ Tables V.D-2 and V.D-3, 80 FR 75706, 75728-30.

              Table 1--Texas' Largest Contribution to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
                                          [Proposed CSAPR update rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Downwind         Downwind
                                                 Largest           Largest       nonattainment     maintenance
      2008 Ozone NAAQS         Air quality      downwind          downwind         receptors        receptors
                                threshold    contribution to   contribution to    located  in       located in
                                              nonattainment      maintenance         states           states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.075 ppm (75 parts per       0.75 ppb....  2.44 ppb........  2.95 ppb........  Wisconsin......  Maryland,
 billion or ppb).                                                                                Michigan, New
                                                                                Jersey, New
                                                                                York, Ohio and
                                                                                Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Texas emissions were also linked to two projected
nonattainment receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, with Texas's
largest downwind contribution to those nonattainment receptors being
1.58 parts per billion (ppb).\11\ Texas has not provided a
demonstration that its SIP is adequate to address interstate transport
to the Denver, Colorado receptors. The EPA believes contribution from
an individual state equal to or above 1 percent of the NAAQS could be
considered significant where the

collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is
responsible for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality
problem regardless of where the receptor is geographically located.\12\
In this case, Texas has more than a 2% contribution to receptors in
Denver, which we consider significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See document EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0007 in http://www.regulations.gov.
    \12\ 76 FR 48238 (Aug. 8, 2011); 80 FR 75714 (Dec. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed previously, our modeling and analysis released in our
NODA and proposed CSAPR Update Rule is the most up-to-date information
for assessing interstate transport of air pollution for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Analysis of wind patterns, emissions data, and ambient
monitoring data as provided in the Texas SIP submittal does not
quantify the magnitude of impact from Texas emissions to downwind
states. For example, wind patterns can only give an indication of the
possibility of transport; emissions data and ambient monitoring data
can indicate the potential for air quality problems. The Texas analysis
only discusses general ozone season wind patterns as being from the
south to the east and the limited potential for transport to Memphis
and Baton Rouge. However, the general wind patterns are generally
consistent with transport to the impacted receptors in Wisconsin and
Colorado, and there are observed winds from the west and northwest that
could, on some days, transport pollutants towards other areas, such as
Baton Rouge. Downward trends in (1) emissions and (2) observed ozone
concentrations can indicate progress towards reducing impact, but do
not provide information on the magnitude of the remaining impact or the
potential benefit from additional emission reductions. Air quality
modeling, however, brings together emissions data, atmospheric
chemistry and meteorological information that simulate the transport
and fate of pollutants and estimate concentrations of pollutants
(including ozone) across the modeling domain. Air quality modeling can
also provide estimates of upwind impacts by estimating the contribution
of a state's emissions to downwind pollutant concentrations. Our
modeling and analysis provided the magnitude of impact and show that
Texas emissions significantly contribute to ozone concentrations in
areas of nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in other states.
    Texas provided a great deal of information documenting significant
emission reductions that have been made throughout the state and
particularly in the eastern half of the state between 1990 and 2010.
These include reductions from controls on EGUs in East Texas and
controls on a variety of NOX sources in the 1-hour ozone and
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas of Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,
Beaumont-Port Arthur and Dallas-Fort Worth. These controls have
resulted in significant reductions in ozone levels in Texas and
undoubtedly have reduced the amount of transported pollution to other
states. However, these reductions were largely put in place to address
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and as a result, their compliance dates, and
therefore the emission reductions achieved through these measures,
predate and were therefore accounted for in the EPA's modeling baseline
of 2011 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the most recent
technical analysis available to the EPA contradicts Texas's conclusion
that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate
transport as to the 2008 ozone standard. Furthermore, Texas did not
demonstrate how these rules and data for a less stringent standard
provide sufficient controls on emissions to address interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Despite the substantial reductions
in Texas, we have subsequently published information and proposed an
update to CSAPR that addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS that includes
Texas's cited rules and demonstrates Texas still has an interstate
impact on other states.
    Among the emissions reductions cited by Texas in its SIP, Texas
cites its participation in CAIR as a control measure that results in
control of NOX emissions within the state. Texas notes that
under CAIR, Texas EGUs were not included in the ozone season
NOX emissions trading program, but were subject to the
annual NOX emissions trading program. The CAIR ozone season
NOX emissions trading program was intended to address
interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The
CAIR annual NOX emissions trading program, along with the
annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading program, was intended to
address interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
    Texas also noted that: (1) A 2008 court decision (the North
Carolina decision) directed the EPA replace CAIR, but kept it in place
temporarily; (2) the EPA replaced CAIR with CSAPR; (3) CSAPR included
Texas EGU budgets for ozone-season NOX emissions, annual
NOX emissions and annual SO2 NOX
emissions to address interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) in August 2012, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a
decision vacating CSAPR and requiring continued implementation of CAIR
until the EPA develops a replacement. Therefore, Texas concluded that
CAIR remains a federally enforceable requirement.
    Subsequent to Texas's submission of its SIP, On April 29, 2014, the
U.S. Supreme Court reversed that D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR
and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. On
October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted our motion to lift the
judicial stay on CSAPR and delay compliance deadlines by three years.
Consistent with the Court's order we issued an interim final rule
amending CSAPR so that compliance could begin in an orderly manner on
January 1, 2015 (79 FR 71663, December 3, 2014), replacing CAIR. On
July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on the issues
raised on remand from the Supreme Court. The court denied all of
petitioners' facial challenges to CSAPR, but remanded several emissions
budgets to the EPA for reconsideration.\13\ A final rule making the
revised CSAPR implementation schedule permanent was issued on March 14,
2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As to Texas in particular, the court remanded without
vacatur the state's phase 2 SO2 annual emissions budget
and the phase 2 ozone-season NOX emissions budget for
reconsideration. The court concluded that these budgets resulted in
over-control of sources in Texas with respect to the air quality
concerns to which Texas was linked in our air quality modeling. As
stated above, our CSAPR update proposal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
responds to the court remand of the NOX ozone-season
emission budgets for EGUs in Texas that were established for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
    \14\ 81 FR 13275 (March 14, 2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, CAIR implementation ended in 2014 and CSAPR
implementation began in 2015. States and the EPA are no longer
implementing the CAIR trading programs. Thus, it is no longer
appropriate for states to rely on CAIR to satisfy emission reduction
obligations. Moreover, as indicated above, Texas's SIP addresses
interstate transport obligations for a different and more stringent
standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS) and it is not sufficient to merely cite
evidence of compliance with older programs such as CAIR or measures
implemented for prior ozone NAAQS as a means for satisfying

interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA is proposing to disapprove the Texas SIP for CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. As explained above, the Texas analysis
does not adequately demonstrate that the SIP contains provisions
prohibiting emissions that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Moreover, the EPA's most recent modeling indicates that emissions from
Texas are projected to significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in other states.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Texas and others interested parties have provided comments
on both the NODA and proposed CSAPR Update Rule. See Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0500 at http://www.regulations.gov. We will consider
these comments in final rulemaking to CSAPR Update Rule. Even absent
this data, Texas's SIP failed to adequately address the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    We propose to disapprove the portion of a December 13, 2012 Texas
SIP submittal pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the
interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA requests comment on our evaluation
of Texas's interstate transport SIP.
    Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), disapproval will establish a 2-
year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Texas to address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS unless Texas submits and we approve a SIP that meets these
requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock
for Texas pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does not
pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting
the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a
SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 4, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-08275 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54991-54992]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD22-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725U)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC-725U,
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System; CIP
Reliability Standards, which will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. No Comments were received on
the 60-day notice published on June 24, 2022.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due October 11,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-725U, Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk Power System; CIP Reliability Standards to OMB
through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control No:
1902-0274(FERC-725U) in the subject line of your comments. Comments
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may
submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. RD22-3-000) by
one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review''
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725U, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System; CIP Reliability Standards.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0274(FERC-725U).
    Type of Request: Approval of the change from the removal of the
recordkeeping requirement in (C.1.1.4) the currently approved
collection: FERC-725U. There are no changes in burden resulting from
this change.
    Abstract: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission is
soliciting public comment on revisions to the information collection
FERC-725U, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System;
CIP Reliability Standards; which will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection
requirements. Comments on the collection of information are due within
60 days of the date this order is published in the Federal Register.
Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this order will not
be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information
unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control
number.
    The information collection requirements are subject to review by
the OMB under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.\1\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\2\ The Commission
solicits comments on the Commission's need for this information,
whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of
the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of
automated information techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \2\ 5 CFR 1320 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of respondents below is based on an estimate of the NERC
compliance registry for transmission owners and transmission operator.
The Commission based its paperwork burden estimates on the NERC
compliance registry as of May 6, 2022. According to the registry, there
are 326 transmission owners and 18 transmission operators not also
registered as transmission owners. The estimate is based on a zero
change in burden from the current standard to the standard approved in
this Order. The Commission based the burden estimate on staff
experience, knowledge, and expertise.
    For the new Reliability Standard CIP-014-3, the burden for entities
remains the same as they will still need to provide the same evidence
to demonstrate compliance whether it is kept on-site or loaded
electronically into the SEL. No comments were received that expressed a
change in the manhour burden associated with the use of SEL.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard CIP-014-3
(Physical Security) is part of the implementation of the Congressional
mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and
enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of
the nation's Bulk Power system. Specifically, the revised standard only
changes the how the evidence is stored.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed NERC's proposal and
determined that its action is necessary to implement section 215 of the
FPA.
    Burden Estimates: The Commission estimates the changes in the
annual public reporting burden and cost \3\ as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FERC staff estimates that industry costs for salary plus
benefits are similar to Commission costs. The FERC 2021 average
salary plus benefits for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) is
$180,703/year (or $87.00/hour) posted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for the Utilities sector (available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm).

                               FERC-725U: (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard CIP-014) Change in Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of       Number of
                                         respondents    responses per   Total number    Average burden hours &     Total burden hours &    Average cost
                                             \4\         respondent     of responses       cost per response            total cost        per respondent
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Annual Reporting and                       344               1             344  32.71 hrs.; 2,845.77....  11,252.24 hrs.;               $2,845.77
 Recordkeeping.                                                                                $978,944.88.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total FERC-725U..................             344               1             344  32.71 hrs.; $2,845.77...  11,254.24 hrs.;                2,845.77
                                                                                $978,944.88.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The total number (344) of transmission owners (326) plus
transmission operators (18) not also registered as owners, this
represents the unique US entities (taken from data as of May 6,
2022).

    Dated: September 1, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19399 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P