[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6063-6068]
[DOCID:fr06fe06-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-354-000; EL06-44-000]

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead
Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly; California Independent System Operator;
Order Accepting and Modifying Tariff Filing and Instituting a Section
206 Proceeding

Issued January 13, 2006.
    1. On December 21, 2005, the California Independent System Operator
Corporation (CAISO) filed a tariff amendment (Amendment No. 73)
proposing to change its current ``soft'' $250/MWh bid cap for real-time
energy bids and adjustment bids to a ``hard'' $400/MWh bid cap,
effective January 1, 2006 or as soon thereafter as possible. The CAISO
asked the Commission to review its application on an expedited basis
with a shortened comment period. In this order, the Commission accepts
with modification, as described below, the CAISO's proposed tariff
amendment, effective upon issuance of this order.
    2. To remove any opportunity for market distortions created by the
Commission's approval of an increase in the CAISO bid cap, we will
institute, under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ an
investigation into the price cap in the WECC outside the CAISO. We also
institute a section 206 investigation into the CAISO ancillary service
capacity bid cap, in order to consider whether any incentives that
distort a supplier's choice between offering energy or ancillary
services will result from the rise in gas prices and the increase in
the CAISO energy bid cap. We hereby establish a refund effective date
pursuant to the provisions of section 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

The CAISO's Filing

    3. The CAISO filed Amendment No. 73 requesting that the Commission
accept its tariff revision altering the CAISO's current bid cap.
Section 28 of the CAISO tariff establishes a bid cap that sets a limit
on the level of bids submitted for the CAISO's energy and ancillary
service capacity markets. According to the CAISO, this bid cap also
applies to adjustment bids used in the day-ahead and hour-ahead
congestion management markets. Amendment No. 73 proposes to modify
section 28.1.2 to replace the current

``soft'' bid cap \2\ of $250/MWh for real-time energy bids and
adjustment bids with a ``hard'' bid cap of $400/MWh.\3\ The CAISO
states that its proposal to change its bid cap from ``soft'' to
``hard'' is consistent with the Commission's directive that it change
its bid cap to a ``hard'' cap when it implements the Market Redesign
and Technology Upgrade (MRTU).\4\ It does not propose to change the bid
cap for ancillary services markets from the current ``soft'' $250/MWh
cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 28.1.1 of the CAISO's tariff currently permits
market participants to submit bids above the cap, but any accepted
bids above the cap are not eligible to set the market clearing price
and are subject to cost justification and refund. A ``soft'' cap is
one where market participants may submit bids above the bid cap with
adequate justification, but without setting the market clearing
price.
    \3\ A ``hard'' cap is one where market participants' bids are
not permitted to exceed the cap, regardless of the seller's costs.
    \4\ California Independent System Operator Corp., 112 FERC ]
61,013 at P 104 (2005) (July 2005 Order), reh'g pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The CAISO states that on November 9, 2005, in response to a
request from its Department of Market Monitoring (DMM), the CAISO's
Market Surveillance Committee (MSC) \5\ recommended that the bid cap on
the real-time energy market be increased prior to this winter, because
``the likelihood of substantially higher natural gas prices during the
winter of [2006] is sufficiently high to justify raising the bid cap at
this time'' in order to avoid ``the risk of generation unit-level
variable costs approaching or rising above the [current $250/MWh] cap
level.'' The MSC recommended a new level of $400/MWh, based on its
analysis of average values of Henry Hub futures prices for the upcoming
winter.\6\ The CAISO further notes that the DMM prepared a memorandum
supporting the MSC's recommendation, citing changed market conditions
and the significant benefits to the California energy markets that
would result from raising the real-time energy bid cap under current
market conditions.\7\ The CAISO asserts that the DMM further
recommended that the bid cap for adjustment bids used in day-ahead and
hour-ahead congestion management markets be increased to $400/MWh, with
the bid cap for ancillary services remaining at $250/MWh.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The CAISO's Web site notes that the MSC is an independent
advisory group of industry experts who can suggest changes in rules
and protocols to the CAISO Governing Board, MSC Description,
available at http://www.caiso.com/docs/2005/10/04/200510041051301081.html
 (last visited Jan. 9, 2006).

    \6\ See Raising the Level of the Bid Cap on the Real-Time Energy
Market in California, Market Surveillance Committee, Nov. 9, 2005
(MSC Recommendation Paper). According to the CAISO, the MSC also
notes that gaining some experience with the current market design
and a higher bid cap would be a preferred strategy for transitioning
in the future to a $500/MWh bid cap. MSC Recommendation Paper at 5-
6.
    \7\ See Memorandum of Keith Casey, Department of Market
Monitoring, Dec. 9, 2005 (DMM Memorandum). According to the CAISO,
the DMM Memorandum enumerates a number of reasons for raising the
bid cap, including: (1) Promoting reliability by providing greater
fixed-cost recovery for generating units during high demand periods
when supply margins are tight and prices are at or near the bid cap;
(2) providing greater incentives for load-servicing entities (LSEs)
to continue to minimize their spot market exposure for signing
additional long-term power contracts; (3) providing greater
incentives for generation owners to maintain their units at a high
level of availability; (4) providing greater incentives for further
development of demand response programs such as real-time pricing;
(5) if gas prices escalate over the winter months, a higher bid cap
will not discourage suppliers from selling into the California real-
time energy markets since such suppliers would be assured of bid
cost recovery for accepted bids above $250/WMh; and (6) providing a
measured transition to the $500/MWh energy bid cap scheduled to be
implemented with the CAISO's new market design in 2007.
    \8\ The CAISO Amendment No. 73 Filing, Dec. 21, 2005 (citing DMM
Memorandum at 5) (The CAISO Amendment No. 73 Filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The CAISO requested that, pursuant to section 35.11 of the
Commission's regulations,\9\ the Commission waive its notice
requirements for Amendment No. 73. The CAISO states that good cause
exists for this waiver because acceptance of a January 1, 2006
effective date will permit the California energy markets to realize the
benefits described above as quickly as possible to address the
substantial increase in natural gas prices that may potentially occur
in the winter 2006. It also states that the January 1 date will assist
in implementation of the bid-cap change in the CAISO settlements
process and will permit interested stakeholders time to comment on this
proposal on an expedited basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 18 CFR 35.11 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The CAISO requested expedited tariff revision procedures under
the Commission's Expedited Tariff Revisions Guidance Order.\10\ It
asserts that Amendment No. 73 satisfies the requirements of the
Expedited Tariff Revisions Guidance Order because the amendment is
intended to remedy the risk that the CAISO real-time energy market may
not be able to attract sufficient supply bids to maintain system
reliability, particularly from resources outside of the CAISO Control
Area due to significant increases in variable operation costs. The
CAISO states that it has posted the filing on its website and sent an
email notification to each market participant as is required by the
Expedited Tariff Revisions Guidance Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Guidance Order on Expedited Tariff Revisions for Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 111
FERC ] 61,009 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Finally, the CAISO requested a shortened comment period of
December 28, 2005 for Amendment No. 73. It states that this shorter
comment period will allow the Commission to issue an order prior to the
requested January 1, 2006 effective date.

Bid Cap Background

    8. In a July 2002 Order,\11\ the Commission established a bid cap
of $250/MWh for the California real-time energy and ancillary services
markets, to become effective on October 1, 2002, as recommended by the
CAISO's MSC. The Commission also applied this bid cap to day-ahead
markets when implemented by the CAISO. The July 2002 Order also imposed
a price cap of $250/MWh for all spot market sales in the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), beginning October 1, 2002.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ California Independent System Operator Corp., 100 FERC ]
61,060 (July 2002 Order), order on reh'g, 101 FERC ] 61,061 (2002).
    \12\ Id. The Commission extended the October 1, 2002 deadline to
October 30, 2002 in a subsequent order. California Independent
System Operator Corp., 100 FERC ] 61,351 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On October 11, 2002, the Commission issued an order on rehearing
and compliance filing.\13\ The October 2002 Order clarified that
sellers may continue to submit bids above the bid cap with the
understanding that such bids cannot set the market clearing price and
that these bids above the cap will be subject to justification and
refund.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ California Independent System Operator Corp., 101 FERC ]
61,061 (2002) (October 2002 Order).
    \14\ Id. at P 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. On July 1, 2005, the Commission issued an order finding that
the bid cap for California market energy bids should be increased to a
hard $500/MWh cap on day one of MRTU implementation.\15\ The July 2005
Order reaffirmed that the bid cap for ancillary services and Residual
Unit Commitment (RUC) availability should remain at $250/MWh.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ July 2005 Order, 112 FERC ] 61,013 at P 104.
    \16\ Id. at 111 (reaffirming the Commission's October 2003 and
June 2004 orders which determined that the bid caps for ancillary
services and RUC availability should be $250/MWh. See California
Independent System Operator Corp., 105 FERC ] 61,140, reh'g denied,
105 FERC ] 61,278 (2003); California Independent System Operator
Corp., 107 FERC ] 61,274, order on reh'g, 108 FERC ] 61,254 (2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Filing and Responsive Pleadings

    11. Notice of the CAISO's December 21, 2005 filing was published in
the Federal Register, 71 Fed. Reg. 98 (2006), with interventions and
protests due on

or before January 3, 2006. Southern California Edison Company (SCE),
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), the Northern California
Power Agency (NCPA), Modesto Irrigation District (MID), the Mirant
Parties,\17\ and the California Department of Water Resources State
Water Project filed motions to intervene. Williams Power Company, Inc.
(Williams), Powerex Corp. (Powerex), Portland General Electric Company
(Portland), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the Indicated
Parties,\18\ and Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM) filed
motions to intervene and comments. California Electricity Oversight
Board (CEOB) filed a motion to intervene with comments supporting the
CAISO's filing but made no other comments. Independent Energy Producers
Association (IEP) filed a motion to intervene out-of-time and comments.
City of Santa Clara, California (SVP) and Public Service Company of New
Mexico (PSNM) filed motions to intervene and protests. The CAISO filed
an answer on January 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Mirant Parties consist of Mirant Americas Energy
Marketing, LP, Mirant California, LLC, Mirant Delta, LLC, and Mirant
Potrero, LLC.
    \18\ The Indicated Parties consist of Avista Energy, Inc., Puget
Sound Energy, Inc., Coral Power, L.L.C., and Sempra Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raising CAISO Bid Cap

    12. PG&E, AReM, and Powerex generally support the CAISO's proposal.
AReM states that the CAISO's proposal is rational and reasonable and
has been sufficiently justified by the CAISO. AReM notes that the risk
of electricity supply shortfalls in California remains high,
particularly during the summer of 2006, and that given the dramatic
increases in natural gas costs that have occurred over the past year,
the current $250/MWh bid cap raises the risk of generator bid costs
exceeding the current bid cap level. AReM cautions that this interim
increase in the cap by the CAISO, however, should not be perceived to
mitigate the necessity for the further ``hard'' bid cap increases
mandated by the Commission.\19\ Powerex cautions that it is important
for the CAISO and the Commission to continue to give careful
consideration in determining the bid cap levels associated with the
various markets so that (1) there is a demonstrated need for the
mitigation, and (2) the mitigation levels do not negatively impact the
efficient operation of the market or the reliable operation of the grid
both in California and West-wide. PSNM, SVP, Portland, and Williams
support or do not oppose \20\ the CAISO's proposal to raise the bid cap
to $400/MWh. No intervenor opposed the CAISO's proposal to raise the
bid cap level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See July 2005 Order, 112 FERC ] 61,013 at P 104.
    \20\ PSNM states it takes no explicit position regarding whether
the $400/MWh bid cap selected by the CAISO is optimal or constitutes
a sufficiently high price to eliminate risks of supply shortfalls,
but agrees in principle with the CAISO's conclusion that higher
natural gas prices necessitate an increase in the existing $250/MWh
bid cap. Williams cautions that its comments in support of the
CAISO's proposal should not be construed as an endorsement of price
caps as it remains opposed to price caps for a number of reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Hard'' vs. ``Soft'' Bid Cap

    13. PSNM, SVP, Portland, and Williams oppose changing the CAISO's
bid cap from a ``soft'' to a ``hard'' cap.
    14. PSNM argues that although the Commission has directed the CAISO
to replace the existing ``soft'' cap with an escalating ``hard'' cap
starting in 2007, concurrent with implementation of the CAISO's MRTU,
it would be unjust and unreasonable to implement a ``hard'' cap,
particularly on such short notice, while still retaining the current
market design structure. PSNM notes that, in our July 2005 Order, the
Commission did not authorize adoption of a ``hard'' cap as part of the
current market structure or otherwise suggest that the CAISO needs to
or should adopt a ``hard'' bid cap prior to adoption of the MRTU in
2007. PSNM contends that implementing a ``hard'' cap now, at the
proposed $400/MWh level, would limit suppliers' ability to recover
their substantiated costs if congestion costs and natural gas prices
cause the competitive market price to exceed $400/MWh, thereby creating
a risk of supply curtailments. PSNM points out that if, as the CAISO
claims, the $400/MWh price it has selected is unlikely to be exceeded
during the one year period prior to adoption of the MRTU, then
retention of the ``soft'' cap should be of little concern. By contrast,
PSNM argues, if the CAISO's estimation of the market price produced by
higher natural gas prices is incorrect, and actual prices exceed the
$400/MWh level, the effect on California markets could be severe.
    15. SVP argues that the CAISO's proposal to change from a ``soft''
cap to a ``hard'' cap is not supportable. They assert that the three
CAISO departmental reports attached to the filing in support of the
proposal recommended an increase to a $400/MWh ``soft'' cap, not a
``hard'' cap. SVP argues that the CAISO's studies conclude that, with
current gas prices projected between $10 and $12 per Mcf, a ``soft''
cap of $400/MWh is roughly equivalent to the $250/MWh ``soft'' cap
implemented when gas costs were approximately three to four dollars per
Mcf. SVP contends that the CAISO studies do not provide any rationale
to support a change from a ``soft'' cap to a ``hard'' cap, and in fact,
assert that a $400/MWh ``soft'' cap is necessary to maintain the status
quo. According to SVP, the CAISO's Board of Governors' resolution
changed the CAISO's departmental recommendations to a ``hard'' cap
without explanation or analysis. SVP points out that the CAISO's only
comment on the change is that the Commission required the CAISO to
change to a ``hard'' cap once MRTU is implemented, and that
implementing a ``hard'' cap now will ease the transition to a $500/MWh
``hard'' cap when MRTU is implemented in 2007. According to SVP,
without the structural changes MRTU is expected to bring about, there
is no justification for the change to a ``hard'' cap, and the CAISO
fails to justify any present need for a ``hard'' cap versus a ``soft''
cap and does not address the potential consequences of the change. SVP
further argues that the escalation in natural gas prices and the recent
bankruptcy filing of Calpine Corporation further strain the market and
risk contributing to a shortfall of energy in California.
    16. Portland argues that the ``hard'' nature of the new bid cap
proposal does not adequately promote a transparent and workable market
with the appropriate application of constraints and oversight.
Specifically, Portland argues that a hard cap would force the CAISO to
resort to out-of-market (OOM) purchases to acquire capacity resources
when market prices within the CAISO market exceed the cap. By
definition, according to Portland, such OOM purchases would involve
capacity and associated pricing that would not be offered to all market
participants in real time, and thus do not promote an efficient,
transparent, and workable market. In contrast, Portland argues that a
``soft'' cap would achieve that goal because the current ``soft'' cap
methodology provides a ceiling that market participants may not exceed
without: (1) Demonstrating that their costs justify a higher bid; and
(2) being subject to refund.
    17. Williams similarly requests that the Commission reject the
proposal to change the bid cap from a ``soft'' to a ``hard'' cap.
Williams submits that the same concerns that resulted in the current
``soft'' cap continue to exist. Specifically, Williams expresses the
concern that should fuel prices continue to rise, its operating costs
may exceed $400/MWh, and with the must-offer obligation still in place,
it may be

required to operate at a loss. Williams states that the CAISO seems to
base its proposal for a ``hard'' cap on the Commission's directive in a
separate proceeding to replace the current ``soft'' bid cap with a
``hard'' bid cap when the CAISO's MRTU market design is
implemented.\21\ However, Williams argues, the environment under which
a generator will operate when MRTU is implemented will be significantly
different than today's environment,\22\ and accordingly the CAISO's
attempt to justify the imposition of a ``hard'' cap at this time, by
comparing the proposed cap with the initial MRTU ``hard'' cap of $500/
MWh, is misplaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See The CAISO Amendment No. 73 Filing at 5 (citing July
2005 Order, 112 FERC ] 61,013 at P 104 (2005)).
    \22\ Williams notes that the ``hard'' cap directed by the
Commission under MRTU is initially set at $500/MWh and ultimately
increases to $1,000/MWh (a structure that Williams points out was
approved by the Commission prior to the recent run-up in fuel
prices), the must-offer obligation will not exist under MRTU as it
does today, and the California Public Utility Commission's (CPUC)
resource adequacy requirement should be in place when MRTU is
implemented, resulting in less reliance by load on the CAISO's real-
time market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Cap in the WECC Outside the CAISO

    18. Powerex and Indicated Parties contend that the CAISO-proposed
bid cap increase should be applied throughout the West in order to
prevent artificial distortions in the electricity markets that could
result from different price caps between regions. They note that the
expected increases in natural gas prices in the winter of 2006 will
affect not only the CAISO markets, but all electricity markets in the
West. As Indicated Parties further state, the West-wide market power
mitigation program was established to meet the same goals as the CAISO
market power mitigation, namely to address market power concerns
without undermining incentives for new entry and long-term adequacy.
Therefore, according to Indicated Parties, until the Commission
releases the western markets from the temporary mitigation program, the
West-wide price cap should be no less than the bid cap for the CAISO
market. Indicated Parties request that the Commission take action under
FPA section 206 to ensure that any elevation in the bid cap applicable
to the CAISO markets is matched by an identical elevation in the price
cap applicable to the remainder of the WECC. Powerex and Indicated
Parties support the increase of the West-wide price cap to $400/MWh.
    19. The Indicated Parties further assert that the Commission should
hold that the bid cap in the non-California portion of the WECC will be
a ``soft'' cap that permits cost justifications for sales above the
level of the cap, and not a ``hard'' cap as the CAISO has proposed for
its markets. They argue that if natural gas prices move even higher
than their current levels, a ``hard'' cap of $400/MWh may not be
sufficient to ensure full cost recovery for some generators. They
assert that a ``soft'' cap at least permits generators to sell at
prices above the cap as long as they can justify their elevated prices.
Indicated Parties also request that the Commission clarify the type of
documentation that sellers need to supply to justify prices above the
applicable bid cap. According to Indicated Parties, this clarification
will reduce the possibility of artificial constraints by making it
easier for sellers with incremental costs above the level of the cap to
decide whether to contribute their output into the market.

Ancillary Services

    20. Powerex states that the cap on ancillary service capacity bids
should be increased to $400/MWh. It asserts that neither the CAISO nor
MSC has offered any reason for the failure to raise this bid cap.
According to Powerex, different bid caps for energy and ancillary
services could potentially distort electricity markets since not all
possible markets scenarios can be foreseen.

Effective Date

    21. SVP asserts that the CAISO violated the FPA by making an
unauthorized tariff change. SVP states that the CAISO filed its
proposed Amendment 73 on December 21, 2005, and requested expedited
consideration in order to implement the proposal on January 1,
2006.\23\ SVP notes that on December 22, 2005, the Commission
established a comment date of January 3, 2006, for protests and
interventions, and did not authorize a January 1, 2006 effective
date.\24\ According to SVP, despite the Commission's absence of
approval, the CAISO announced its intention to make the proposed
``hard'' cap effective on January 1, 2006.\25\ SVP states that the
CAISO has no authority to unilaterally implement tariff changes before
the Commission approves the changes. It states that the Commission
should not tolerate such actions which violate the filed rate
doctrine.\26\ SVP states that the CAISO's unauthorized change in the
tariff could cause bids to be rejected or could cause sellers to choose
not to bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See CAISO Amendment No. 73 Filing.
    \24\ California Independent System Operator Corp., Notice of
Filing, Docket No. ER06-354-000, Dec. 22, 2005.
    \25\ See CAISO Market Notice, Dec. 27, 2005.
    \26\ See FPA sections 205(c), 16 U.S.C. 824d(c) (2000), and
206(a), 16 U.S.C. 824e(a) (2000); see also Arkansas Louisiana Gas
Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571, 581 (1981) (explaining that ``under the
filed rate doctrine, the Commission alone is empowered to [accept
proposed rate filings], and until it has done so, no rate other than
the one on file may be charged.''); Williams Power Co. v. California
Independent System Operator Corp., 110 FERC ] 61,231 at P 18,
clarification denied, 111 FERC ] 61,348 (2005) (explaining that
``[i]f the CAISO believes that additional tariff provisions are
necessary to maintain operational control of its system and to
minimize operating costs, it must request prior Commission
authorization of the proposed tariff changes.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

Procedural Matters

    22. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2005), the notices of intervention and
timely, unopposed motions to intervene serve to make the entities that
filed them parties to these proceedings. We will accept IEP's motion to
intervene because it will not be prejudicial at this early stage in the
proceeding.
    23. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2005), prohibits an answer to a
protest unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We will
accept the CAISO's answer because it has provided information that
assisted us in our decision-making process.
    24. IEP failed to file a timely Statement of Issues as required by
Order No. 663.\27\ Order No. 663 applies to all pleadings, including
protests and comments,\28\ and requires that any issues that a movant
wishes the Commission to address must be specifically identified in a
section entitled ``Statement of Issues'' that must list each issue
presented to the Commission in a separately enumerated paragraph that
includes representative Commission and court precedent on which the
party is relying. Any issues not so listed in a separate section will
be deemed to have been waived. Order No. 663 became effective September
23, 2005. IEP's late motion to intervene and comments, filed on January
4, 2006, omitted the Statement of Issues. For this reason, we deem IEP
to have waived the issues in its comments. While Indicated Parties did
include a ``Statement of

Issues,'' any issue not specifically identified by Indicated Parties in
their ``Statement of Issues'' is deemed waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue
Identification, Order No. 663, 70 FR 55,723 (Sept. 23, 2005), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ]31,193 (2005).
    \28\ Order No. 663 does not apply to comments on rulemakings or
comments on offers of settlement. However, that exception does not
apply here because IEP is commenting on a tariff filing. See Order
No. 663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination

CAISO Bid Cap
    25. The current $250/MWh ``soft'' bid cap in the CAISO's energy
market was established in October 2002 when natural gas prices were
between $3 and $4/MMBtu. As the CAISO noted in its filing, in recent
months, concerns over tight natural gas supplies have resulted in high
and volatile natural gas prices throughout the country. Natural gas
spot prices in California recently reached as high as $14/MMBtu.\29\
Since natural gas is the fuel source for a significant portion of
generation used to meet California load, this price rise and volatility
led the CAISO to have concerns that the current level of the bid cap
may constrain the CAISO's ability to acquire sufficient power in real
time. Given the current market design, which includes a must-offer
obligation and a $250/MWh cap on energy, the Commission is concerned
that generators may not have the opportunity to adequately recover
their costs. We note that no intervenor has opposed the increase, and
find that raising the bid cap is justified by the well-documented rise
in gas prices. Accordingly, the Commission accepts the CAISO's proposal
to raise the current bid cap from $250/MWh to $400/MWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Daily price survey ($/MMBtu), Platts Gas Daily, Dec.
14, 2005, at p. 2 (listing the midpoint for ``PG&E city-gate'' at
$14.325).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The Commission rejects, however, the CAISO's proposal to change
the current ``soft'' nature of the cap to a ``hard'' cap during this
interim period prior to the implementation of MRTU and a resource
adequacy mechanism. Neither the MSC nor DMM recommended changing the
cap from a ``soft'' to a ``hard'' cap, and the CAISO has not adequately
supported such a change. A ``hard'' cap, in combination with the
CAISO's current must-offer obligation,\30\ could result in confiscatory
rates because it would raise the possibility that sellers could be
forced to operate at a loss. Based on the current circumstances of
rising and volatile gas prices, we will retain the cap as a ``soft''
cap during this interim period. The CAISO has filed an emergency
request in response to an unusual situation of rapidly rising natural
gas prices, and the Commission believes the importance of ensuring a
market design that is both reliable and non-confiscatory outweighs the
CAISO's desire to transition towards a ``hard'' cap directed by the
Commission to begin at the implementation of MRTU in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ We note that the current must-offer obligation in
California (and the WECC), which lacks a separate capacity payment,
is different from a must-offer obligation where sellers, as part of
a resource adequacy program, voluntarily accept a must-offer
obligation in exchange for receiving a capacity payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Cap in the WECC Outside the CAISO

    27. Our preliminary judgment is that the maximum price for spot
market sales in the WECC outside the CAISO, as established by the
Commission in our July 2002 Order, should also be raised to a $400/MWh
``soft'' cap. As we stated in that order, ``California is an integral
part of a trade and reliability region in the West. Because of this
interdependency of market and infrastructure, conditions in and changes
to the California market affect the entire region.'' \31\ Accordingly,
pursuant to our authority under section 206 of the FPA, we propose to
increase the cap to a $400/MWh ``soft'' cap for all spot market sales
in the WECC outside the CAISO, defined in our June 19, 2001 Order as
sales in the WECC that are 24 hours or less and are entered into the
day of or day prior to delivery.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ July 2002 Order at P 2.
    \32\ See San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy
and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California
Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, 95
FERC ]61,418 at n. 3 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. In light of issues raised by entities in this proceeding and
the Commission's above proposal, we hereby institute, under section 206
of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824e (2000), an investigation into the price cap
on spot market sales in the WECC outside the CAISO. We recognize the
interest of entities regarding this investigation and, therefore, the
Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on this issue
within 10 days from the date of issuance of this order. We note that
implementing a $400/MWh bid cap in the CAISO while the remainder of the
WECC retains a $250/MWh cap could cause the non-CAISO WECC to have
difficulties in attracting imbalance energy if gas prices were to rise
substantially prior to Commission action. Because gas prices have
leveled off since the CAISO's filing, we believe the potential for this
to occur in the near term is small, however, the Commission intends to
act expeditiously to address this WECC cap upon the expiration of the
comment period.
    29. In cases where the Commission institutes an investigation on
its own motion, section 206(b) of the FPA, as amended by section 1285
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,\33\ requires that the Commission
establish a refund effective date and that date must be no earlier than
the publication date of the Commission's notice that it intends to
initiate such proceeding but no later than five months after the
publication date. Therefore, we find that the refund effective date,
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, as amended by section 1285 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is the date on which this order is
published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Pub. L. No. 109-58, Sec.  1285, 119 Stat. 594, 980-81
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ancillary Services

    30. Powerex argues that the bid caps should be the same for both
the CAISO energy and ancillary services markets. Powerex asserts that
neither the CAISO nor MSC has offered a rationale for not raising the
ancillary services bid cap from its current $250/MWh level, and cites
potential market distortions without giving details of how they might
occur. In its answer, the CAISO dismisses this concern, pointing out
that PJM has a $1,000/MWh energy bid cap and a $100/MWh regulation bid
cap, and asserting that ancillary service capacity is a fixed cost and
that gas prices do not affect the cost of ancillary services. The CAISO
argues that to the extent the CAISO accepts an ancillary services
capacity bid from a supplier, and then calls on the unit to provide
energy, the supplier will be able to reflect any increased gas costs in
its energy bid. Finally, the CAISO argues that the ancillary service
capacity bid cap will continue to be a ``soft'' cap, thus allowing
suppliers to submit bids in excess of $250/MWh, provided they can
provide cost justification for such bids.
    31. The Commission recognizes that until the implementation of MRTU
in 2007, the current CAISO market design does not have a day-ahead
market that co-optimizes energy and ancillary services. The CAISO
relies on ancillary service capacity being offered by sellers directly
to the CAISO for various categories of reserves. Sellers must make the
decision to sell either energy or ancillary services. To the extent a
seller chooses to make its capacity available for selling an ancillary
service like spinning reserves, it could incur an opportunity cost by
not selling energy. Thus, under the current market design, the price of
energy could have an impact on the price of ancillary services and
suppliers may thus choose to provide energy instead of ancillary

services if the ancillary service capacity bid cap is below this
opportunity cost.
    32. Given these concerns, we will address the issue of the
appropriate level of the CAISO ancillary service capacity bid cap in
the section 206 investigation instituted in this proceeding. We
recognize the interest of entities regarding this issue, therefore, the
Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the
appropriate level of the CAISO's ancillary service capacity bid cap
within 10 days from the date of issuance of this order. As discussed
above, we find that the refund effective date, pursuant to section
206(b) of the FPA, as amended by section 1285 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, is the date on which this order is published in the Federal
Register.

Effective Date

    33. We note that in its answer, the CAISO states that it has not
implemented Amendment No. 73 and it does not intend to make the $400/
MWh bid cap effective until approved by the Commission. In fact, the
CAISO asserts that it made repeated statements in its transmittal
letter and market notice that it requested the amendment be made
effective on January 1, 2006 or as soon thereafter as possible. As
noted above, the Commission accepts the CAISO's proposal, as modified,
effective as of the date of this order.

The Commission Orders

    (A) The Commission accepts and modifies the CAISO's proposal to
adjust its bid cap for real-time energy bids and adjustment bids to
$400/MWh, as discussed within the body of the order, effective upon
issuance of this order.
    (B) Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Commission by the
FPA, particularly section 206 thereof, the Commission institutes an
investigation into the price cap in the WECC outside the CAISO and the
ancillary service capacity bid cap in the CAISO, as discussed in the
body of this order. Entities may submit comments regarding these issues
within 10 days from the date of issuance of this order.
    (C) The refund effective date established pursuant to section
206(b) of the FPA, as amended by section 1285 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, as discussed in the body of this order, is the date upon which
this order is published in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-1090 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 21352-21353]
[DOCID:fr07my09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13-023]

Green Island Power Authority; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

April 30, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New major license.
    b. Project No.: 13-023.
    c. Date Filed: March 2, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Green Island Power Authority.
    e. Name of Project: Green Island Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Hudson River in
Albany County, New York. The project would occupy Federal land managed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Agent Contact: James A. Besha, President, Albany Engineering
Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Tom Dean,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the
``eFiling'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time.
    l. Project Description: The existing Green Island Project utilizes
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Green Island-Troy lock and dam
that consists of: (1) A dam with a main spillway with a fixed crest
elevation of 14.33 feet mean sea level (msl); and (2) an auxiliary
spillway with a crest elevation of 16.33 feet msl.
    The Green Island Project consists of: (1) 2-foot-high pneumatic
flashboards along the top of the main spillway with a crest elevation
of 16.33 feet msl; (2) a 700-acre impoundment with a normal water
surface elevation of 16.33 feet msl; (3) a bulkhead and forebay
structure located downstream and at the west end of the Corps dam; (4)
a powerhouse containing four 1.5 megawatt (MW) generating units with a
total installed capacity of 6.0 MW; (5) a 34.5 kilovolt underground
transmission cable; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
    Green Island Power Authority proposes to: (1) Lower the existing
main spillway to a crest elevation of 12.5 feet msl, and install new
hydraulically operated crest gates with a maximum crest gate elevation
of 18.5 feet msl; (2) install a new trash boom extending across and
upstream of the forebay; (3) construct a new bulkhead structure
equipped with a new 300-foot-wide, 300-foot-long fish protection system
screen; and (4) expand the existing powerhouse to the east and west and
install four new 6.0 MW generating units, and replace the four existing
generating units with four new 6.0 MW generating units with a total
installed capacity of 48 MW.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects.

For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE''; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.
    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Ready for Environmental Analysis...  September 1, 2009.
Filing comments, recommendations,           October 30, 2009.
 preliminary terms and conditions, and
 fishway prescriptions.
Notice of availability of the EA..........  March 1, 2010.
Filing comments on EA.....................  April 1, 2010.
Filing modified terms and conditions......  June 1, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10516 Filed 5-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43383-43385]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0080]

Notice To Establish the Transforming Transportation Advisory
Committee (TTAC)

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of the establishment of the Transforming Transportation
Advisory Committee (TTAC), TTAC Charter, and TTAC Membership Balance
Plan.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) announces
the establishment of the Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee
(TTAC). The Secretary has determined that establishing TTAC is
necessary and is in the public interest.

DATES: The TTAC Charter will be effective for two years after date of
publication of this Federal Register notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TTAC Designated Federal Officer, c/o
Juli Huynh--Director, Office of Policy Coordination and Development,
Office of the Secretary, [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the establishment of
the DOT TTAC as a Federal Advisory Committee in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2) to
provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary on
matters relating to transportation innovation. TTAC is tasked with
providing advice and recommendations to the Secretary about needs,
objectives, plans, and approaches for transportation innovation. Please
see the TTAC website for additional information at https://www.transportation.gov/ttac.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 14, 2022, under authority
delegated at 49 CFR 1.25a.
Vincent Gerard White Jr.,
Senior Advisor for Innovation.

Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee Charter

    1. Committee's Official Designation: The Committee's official
designation is the Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee
(TTAC).
    2. Authority: The Committee is established as a discretionary
Committee under the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The formation and
use of TTAC are determined to be in the public interest.
    3. Objectives and Scope of Activities: The Secretary of
Transportation (the Secretary), or his or her designee, shall present
TTAC with tasks on matters relating to transportation innovation. The
Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary
about needs, objectives, plans, and approaches for multimodal
transportation innovation.
    4. Description of Duties: The Committee is advisory only. Duties
include the following:
    a. Gathering information as necessary to discuss issues presented
by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO);
    b. Deliberating on the following issues, as assigned:
    i. Exploring pathways to safe, secure, equitable, environmentally
friendly and accessible deployments of emerging technologies;
    ii. Identifying integrated approaches and finding ways to promote
greater cross-modal integration of emerging

technologies, in particular applications to deploy automation;
    iii. Recommending policies that encourage innovation to grow and
support a safe and productive U.S. workforce, as well as foster
economic competitiveness and job quality;
    iv. Assessing approaches and frameworks that encourage the secure
exchange and sharing of transformative transportation data, including
technologies and infrastructure, across the public and private sectors
that can guide core policy decisions across DOT's strategic goals;
    v. Exploring ways the Department can identify and elevate
cybersecurity solutions and protect privacy across transportation
systems and infrastructure;
    vi. Considering other emerging issues, topics, and technologies, at
the direction of the DFO.
    c. Providing written advice and recommendations to the Secretary.
    5. Agency/Official To Whom the Committee Reports: The Committee
shall report to the Secretary through the Under Secretary for
Transportation Policy.
    6. Support: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy (OST-P) will provide necessary support for the
Committee.
    7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years: The annual
operating (administrative) costs associated with the Committee's
functions are estimated to be $200,000. The cost estimate includes
support from 2 full-time equivalent positions that are required to
support the Committee. Costs incurred by Committee members for travel
and logistics will not be paid by the Department.
    8. Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and Sponsor
    a. The DFO for the Committee is OST's Senior Advisor for Innovation
or his or her designee.
    b. The DFO will approve or call all Committee and subcommittee
meetings, prepare and approve all meeting agendas, attend all Committee
and subcommittee meetings, adjourn any meetings when he or she
determines adjournment to be in the public interest, and chair meetings
when directed to do so by the Secretary.
    9. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings: Committee meetings
will be held approximately twice a year. As necessary, the DFO may call
subcommittee meetings.
    10. Duration: Continuing until renewed/terminated.
    11. Termination: The Committee will terminate 2 years from the
charter filing date unless the charter is renewed in accordance with
the FACA.
    12. Membership and Designation
    a. Members will serve without charge, and without any government
compensation.
    b. The Committee shall comprise no more than 25 members appointed
by the Secretary for up to 2-year terms.
    c. Members serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary
may extend appointments and may appoint replacements for members
outside a stated term, as necessary.
    d. The Secretary may reappoint members.
    e. The members shall include safety advocates, experts from
academia/universities, representatives of organized labor, technical
experts (e.g., automation, data, privacy, cybersecurity), and industry
representatives. Individuals appointed solely for their expertise will
be appointed as special government employees (SGEs). No single interest
group may constitute a majority of the Committee.
    f. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have
considered the needs of diverse groups served by the Department,
membership shall include, to the extent practicable, persons with lived
experience and knowledge of the needs of underrepresented groups.
    g. Members may continue to serve until their replacements have been
appointed.
    h. The Secretary shall designate a chair and vice chair from among
members of the Committee. They will serve 2-year nonrenewable terms.
The vice chair will succeed the chair at the end of the term.
    13. Subcommittees: The Secretary, Under Secretary for
Transportation Policy, or DFO shall be authorized to establish
subcommittees. Subcommittees shall not work independently of the
chartered TTAC and shall report their recommendations and advice to the
full TTAC for deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees must not
provide advice or work products directly to DOT. Subcommittee
membership is not limited to those who were selected as members of the
Committee. Further, any costs associated with subcommittee travel or
meetings will not be paid by the Department.
    14. Recordkeeping: The records of the Committee, formally and
informally established subcommittees, or other subgroups of the
Committee, shall be handled in accordance with General Records Schedule
6.2 or other approved agency records disposition schedule. These
records shall be available for public inspection and copying, subject
to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
    15. Filing Date: This charter is effective July 19, 2022. The
charter will expire 2 years after this date unless sooner terminated or
renewed.

Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee Membership Balance Plan

(1) Federal Advisory Committee Name

    Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC).

(2) Authority

    The Committee is a discretionary Committee under the authority of
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), established in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

(3) Mission/Function

    The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the
Secretary on transportation innovation.

(4) Points of View

    The Committee consists of members from DOT's stakeholder groups,
representing safety advocates, labor, technical experts (e.g.,
automation, data, privacy, cybersecurity), and industry
representatives. The TTAC membership ceiling is set at 25.
    a. The Committee may be composed of up to 25 members who are
selected from individuals who are not employees of DOT and who
represent the interests and opinions of the safety advocates, labor,
technical experts (e.g., automation, data, privacy, cybersecurity), and
industry representatives. Other members appointed solely for their
expertise must be appointed as Special Government Employees (SGE).
    b. DOT seeks to achieve balance among the membership on the
Committee. Membership shall include representative members and SGEs, as
necessary. Membership balance is dynamic and may change depending on
the work of the Committee.

(5) Other Balance Factors

    In addition to the factors stated above to balance the Committee
membership, DOT seeks balance regarding the following factors: gender;
geographic area; race and ethnicity; expertise; diversity of work
sector; and other factors to achieve the most diverse and comprehensive
points of view.

(6) Candidate Identification Process

    a. Initial TTAC membership will be solicited through a Federal
Register Notice.
    b. Periodically, when several openings arise on the Committee, DOT
will solicit membership from among the representative sectors through a
notice in the Federal Register and other advertisements, as necessary.
Adequate time is allowed for candidates to apply or be nominated.
Additionally, the Secretary may extend appointments and may appoint
replacements for members who have resigned outside of a stated term, as
necessary.
    c. Upon closure of the application period, candidate applications
will be compiled and reviewed and recommendations for membership made
by the Designated Federal Officer, or designee, and to the Secretary
for selection.
    d. Under the TTAC Charter, Committee members continue to serve
until new members have been appointed to replace them. Members may be
appointed by the Secretary for up to 2-year terms and may be
reappointed by the Secretary.

(7) Subcommittee Balance

    If established, subcommittees will be balanced according to the
criteria discussed above. A truncated selection process may be
implemented.

(8) Other

    None.

(9) Date Prepared/Updated

    This Membership Balance Plan was prepared initially on July 14,
2022 and will be updated in conjunction with the charter every two
years.

[FR Doc. 2022-15458 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60303]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact
indicator under the Public Assistance program for disasters declared on
or after October 1, 2008, will be increased.

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2008, and applies to major disasters
declared on or after October 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Walke, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 44 CFR 206.48 provides that FEMA will adjust
the statewide per capita impact indicator under the Public Assistance
program to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers published by the Department of Labor.
    FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita impact indicator
will be increased to $1.31 for all disasters declared on or after
October 1, 2008.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers of 5.4 percent for the 12-month period
ended in August 2008. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on September 16, 2008.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Public Assistance
Grants.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24066 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


° Item number 67   The most recent 3 year average for all types of PCB releases reported to the National Response Center ( 276 calls) is captured in this ICR, whereas no spill incidences were reported in the previous ICR. [( 46 hrs  0 hrs) x 2)](+ 46 hr adjustment)

° Item number 68   For this report, the revised estimate uses a new assumption that the greater than 1 lb spills of PCBs by weight that occur at electrical substations are a large subset but not all of all the spills that must be reported to the NRC; 95 percent of the average annual 276 spills reported from 2000 to 2002 ( U. S. Coast Guard, 2003). This number is reduced from the previous ICR, which assumed there would be 12 spills at each of the 565 large utilities, disposers, and storers, for a total of 6,780 sites. Thus, the total number of sites that must be labeled is 72 greatly reduced. The capital cost of $ 50 per site remains the same at $ 50 per sign, but the revised capital cost is reduced to $ 13,100 ( not annualized). ( 6,780 hr  262 hrs) ( 6,518 hr program adjustment)

° Item numbers 69, 70, 71, 101, and 102   The number of items that must be included on manifests, the number of consolidated manifests sent from storers to disposers, the number of Certificates of Disposal sent to generators, and the number of manifests and Certificates maintained on file have been revised based on new data compiled in the PCB Annual Report and discussion with an industry representative. The method of generating these estimates was also revised. It was newly estimated to take an average of 5 minutes for generators to first gather and enter information on manifests for each item and then storers to compile more readily available information on manifests for sending consolidated shipments to disposers. The previous estimate was 10 minutes for all types of manifests. The total number of items for which manifests must be prepared increases and was obtained from the most recent PCB Annual Report for the total number items transferred to another facility ( i. e., a storer or disposer). The total number of manifests or shipping papers sent to generators was based on the compilation of information on about 20 items per manifest or shipping paper, reducing the total number of papers sent. Likewise, the total number of Certificates of Disposal sent to generators was reduced and is based on the average number of items disposed of ( from the Annual Report) and assuming that each Certificate contains information on about 20 items. The records that must be maintained are the same as the number of manifests or shipping papers and Certificates of Disposal. [(( 3,770 hrs x 4) + 5,644 hrs)  ( 9,161 hrs + 922 hrs+ 1,307 hrs + 922 hrs+ 873 hrs)] ( 7,539 hr adjustment)

° Item numbers 74 a and b   The decreased estimated total for the number of transformers that need to be inspected is based on data compiled for the Draft Analysis of the Cost Impacts of the Potential Amendments to the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR Part 761. [ ( 12,951 hrs  51,961)  ( 10,375 hrs+ 41,625 hrs)] ( 12,912 hr adjustment)

° Item numbers 74 c and d   The total number of PCB Transformers not subject to the inspection requirements is reduced using revised data from the Draft Analysis of the Cost Impacts of the Potential Amendments to the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR Part 761. ( 325 hrs+ 1,303 hrs)  ( 13 +  51) (+ 1,564 hr adjustment)

° Item number 78   The reduced total for the number of PCB large capacitors for which records are kept is based on estimates made for the Draft Analysis of the Cost Impacts of the Potential Amendments to the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR Part 761. ( 20,000 hr  10,000 hr) ( 10,000 hr adjustment) 73 ° Item number 84   The increased number of waste storers was based on the total number of waste generators and storers listed in the latest PADs database. ( 240 hrs  152 hrs) (+ 88 hr adjustment)

° Item number 88   The decreased total number of storers was obtained from the latest EPA list of TSCA Commercial Storers. ( 92,730 hrs  74,184 hrs) ( 18,546 hr adjustment)

° Item number 89   The approved number of incinerators decreased by one facility. ( 4,215  3,372) ( 843 hr adjustment)

° Item number 91   The total number of approved scrap metal recovery ovens is 8, reduced from the estimated 100 ovens. ( 300 hrs  24 hrs) ( 276 hr adjustment)

° Item number 92   There is presently one additional approved chemical waste landfill. ( 7,587  6,744) (+ 843 hr adjustment)

° Item numbers 97, and 98   Revised estimated is based on the average annual number of spills reported to the NRC from 2000 to 2002 ( U. S. Coast Guard, 203), as opposed to using estimates of the total number of spills at utilities, storers, and disposers. New estimate is reduced from the 6,780 sets of records included in the prior ICR. The number of spills that would face delays in cleanup also reduces proportionately to 14 sites from 339 sites. ( 54,240 hrs  2,208 hrs) + ( 170 hr  7 hrs) ( 52,195 hr adjustment)

° Item number 99   The total number of facilities increased based on the present number of PCB waste handlers in the PADs database and the total number of approved commercial storers and disposers. ( 465,140 hrs  326,040 hrs) (+ 139,100 hr adjustment) 74 TABLE 6 10 CHANGES IN BURDEN HOURS TO EXISTING PCB ICR TOTALS Item Numbers Change in Burden Hours Item Numbers Change in Burden Hours 3  415 hours 68 hours 8 + 21,150 hours 69, 70, 71, 101, and 102  7,539 hours 5, 10, 12 to 21, 23, 27, 31 to 33, 40, and 46 to 49 + 68,188 hours 74 a and 74b  12,912 hours 22 and 25 + 5,164 hours 74 c and 74d + 1,564 hours 28 + 10 hours 78  10,000 hours 34 to 38  1,121 hours 84 + 88 hours 41  6,313 hours 88  18,546 hours 41a, 68a and 75  11,976 hours 89  843 hours 52 + 3 hours 91  276 hours 60, 79, and 95 + 25 hours 92 + 843 hours 65  23,977 hours 97 and 98  52,195 hours 67 + 46 hours 99 + 139,100 hours Total + 83,550 hours There is a 33 hour difference between the change in the burden based on adjustments ( 83,550 hours, Table 6 10) compared to the difference between the OMB inventory and the total burden indicated on Table 6 9 ( 824 778  741,261= 83,517 hours). This difference can be attributed both to rounding off figures generated by the spreadsheets of Tables 6 4 through 6 6 and margin of error associated with the vast number of calculations that have been factored into this analysis.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070 0112, is estimated to average 1.01 hours per response. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal 75 agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information]. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT 2004 0087, which is available for public viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1544 and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is ( 202) 566 0280. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OPPT 2004 0087 and OMB control number 2070 0112 in any correspondence. 76 REFERENCES Hoffman, A. 1997. Memo re: Additional Comments on ICR entitled " PCBs Used in Electrical Equipment and Transformers" [ OMB Control No. 2070 0003; EPA ICR # 1000.06]. March 14.

Davis, M. 2003. Telephone conversation between Mary Davis, PCB Committee Chair. Utility and Solid Waste Advisory Group ( USWAG), 318 673 2744, and Carol Wendel, Eastern Research Group. October 22.

Lacey, P. 2003. Telephone conversation between Pamela Lacey, PCB Coordinator, American Gas Association, Washington, DC, 202 824 7000, and Carol Wendel, Eastern Research Group. October 21.

Eastern Research Group. 2000. Memorandum Regarding Revisions to PCB Consolidated ICR Statement, to Peggy Reynolds, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. October 26.

Eastern Research Group. 1993. Assessment of the Benefits of the Proposed Standard on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution. Prepared for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Orton, T. Telephone conversation with Tim Orton, Environmental Manger, EnviroCare, Salt Lake City, UT, 801 532 1330, and Carol Wendel, Eastern Research Group. October 24.

U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2000. Country Business Patterns, 2000. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC ( http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ cbp/ view/ cbpview. html), August 2003.

U. S. Coast Guard, 2003. National Response Center. Query/ Download NRC Data. ( http:// www. nrc. uscg. mil/ foia. html). October 16.

U. S. DOL. 2003a. Employer Costs For Employee Compensation   June 2003. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor: 03 446, Washington, DC ( http:// www. bls. gov/ ect/ home. htm). August 26, 2003.

U. S. DOL. 2003b. National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, July 2002. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. June.

U. S. EIA, 1995. U. S. Energy Information Administration. 1995 Annual Electric Utility Data ( EIA 861). 77 U. S. EPA. 2003a. Commercially Permitted PCB Disposal Companies. ( http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ pcb/ stordisp. html). October.

U. S. EPA. 2003b. Commercial Storage Approvals Issued under § 761.65( d). ( http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ pcb/ comstor. html). March.

U. S. EPA. 2003c. Decontamination Approvals Issued Under § 761.79( h). ( http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ pcb/ 79( h). html). October U. S. EPA, 2003d. Draft Analysis of the Cost Impacts of Potential Amendments to the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR 761, September.

U. S. EPA, 2003e. PCB Activity Database ( PADs). ( http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ pcb/ data. html). July 25.

U. S. EPA. 2003f. PCB Annual Report 2001. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC. July 23.

U. S. EPA. 2003g. Scrap Metal Recovery Oven Notifications ( § 761.72( a)). ( http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ pcb/ oven. html). October.

U. S. EPA. 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Reclassification of PCB and PCB Contaminated Electrical Equipment Rule: Supporting Analysis for Small Entity, Environmental Justice, and Unfunded Mandates Certifications. September 28.

U. S. EPA. 1998a. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Data Gathering Report for the Combined ICR Supporting Statement Covering the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR 750 and 761. August 17.

U. S. EPA. 1998b. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Cost Impacts of the Final Regulations Amending the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR Part 761. April 30.

U. S. EPA. 1998c. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR Supporting Statement for the Final Regulations Amending the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR 761 ( ICR 1729).

U. S. EPA. 1998d. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. PCB Reclassification Rule: Small Entity Impacts, Environmental Justice Impacts, and Unfunded Mandates Analysis. March 3. 78 U. S. EPA. 1989. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Options for Notification and Manifesting of PCB Containing Wastes. EPA Contract No. 68 02 4235. July 28.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs): Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce Exemptions; ICR 857.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. PCB Use in Electrical Equipment and Transformers; ICR # 1000; OMB Control No. 2070 0003.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs); Exclusions, Exemptions, and Use Authorizations; ICR # 1001.06; OMB Control No. 2070 1001.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. PCB Disposal Permitting Regulation; EPA ICR # 1012.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. Combination/ renewal of two existing ICRS: Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) Use, Storage, and Disposal Recordkeeping Requirements; EPA ICR # 583 and PCBs: Notification and Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities; EPA ICR # 1446.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. Combination/ renewal of two existing ICRS: Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) Use, Storage, and Disposal Recordkeeping Requirements; EPA ICR # 583 and PCBs: Notification and Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities; EPA ICR # 1446, amended to address the new Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) requirements for thirdparty notifications.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. Combination/ renewal of two existing ICRS: Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) Use, Storage, and Disposal Recordkeeping Requirements; EPA ICR # 583 and PCBs: Notification and Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities; EPA ICR # 1446.

U. S. EPA. Supporting Statement. Import of PCB Wastes for Disposal, EPA ICR # 1770.01; OMB Control No. 2070 0149.

U. S. GPO. 2001. Reclassification of PCB and PCB Contaminated Electrical Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register ( 66 FR 176020). U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. April 2.

U. S. OPM. 2003. Salary table 2003 GS; 2003 General Schedule. U. S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC. January. APPENDIX A TSCA Section 6( e)

15 USC 2605( e) TITLE 15  Commerce and trade CHAPTER 53  Toxic substances control SUBCHAPTER I  Control of toxic substances Sec. 2605.  Regulation of hazardous chemical substances and mixtures * * *

( e) Polychlorinated biphenyls ( 1) Within six months after January 1, 1977, the Administrator shall promulgate rules to

( A) prescribe methods for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls, and ( B) require polychlorinated biphenyls to be marked with clear and adequate warnings, and instructions with respect to their processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal or with respect to any combination of such activities.

Requirements prescribed by rules under this paragraph shall be consistent with the requirements of paragraphs ( 2) and ( 3).

( 2) ( A) Except as provided under subparagraph ( B), effective one year after January 1, 1977, no person may manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce or use any polychlorinated biphenyl in any manner other than in a totally enclosed manner.

( B) The Administrator may by rule authorize the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce or use ( or any combination of such activities) of any polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than in a totally enclosed manner if the Administrator finds that such manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, or use ( or combination of such activities) will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

( C) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term '' totally enclosed manner'' means any manner which will ensure that any exposure of human beings or the environment to a polychlorinated biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the Administrator by rule.

( 3) ( A) Except as provided in subparagraphs ( B) and ( C)

( i) no person may manufacture any polychlorinated biphenyl after two years after January 1, 1977, and ( ii) no person may process or distribute in commerce any polychlorinated biphenyl after two and one half years after such date.

( B) Any person may petition the Administrator for an exemption from the requirements of subparagraph ( A), and the Administrator may grant by rule such an exemption if the Administrator finds that

( i) an unreasonable risk of injury to health or environment would not result, and ( ii) good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for such polychlorinated biphenyl.

An exemption granted under this subparagraph shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Administrator may prescribe and shall be in effect for such period ( but not more than one year from the date it is granted) as the Administrator may prescribe.

( C) Subparagraph ( A) shall not apply to the distribution in commerce of any polychlorinated biphenyl if such polychlorinated biphenyl was sold for purposes other than resale before two and one half years after October 11, 1976.

( 4) Any rule under paragraph ( 1), ( 2)( B), or ( 3)( B) shall be promulgated in accordance with paragraphs ( 2), ( 3), and ( 4) of subsection ( c) of this section.

( 5) This subsection does not limit the authority of the Administrator, under any other provision of this chapter or any other Federal law, to take action respecting any polychlorinated biphenyl


[Federal Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 66828]
[DOCID:fr03no05-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP88-67-081 and RP98-198-008]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 27, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 21, 2005, Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Seventh Revised Volume No. 1 and First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff
sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing to become effective December
1, 2005.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6067 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26633-26634]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 399

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2019-0182]
RIN 2105-AE72

Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of request for extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On February 28, 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(Department or DOT) published in the Federal Register a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices.
The NPRM provided a 60-day comment period that was set to close on
April 28, 2020. Nine consumer organizations asked the Department to
extend the comment period on the NPRM. To allow interested persons more
time to submit their comments, the Department has determined that an
extension of the comment period for an additional 30 days is
appropriate.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM, published February 28, 2020 (85
FR 11881), on Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices is extended to May
28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may review the request to extend the public comment
period and other comments received under Docket Number OST 2019-0182
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Gorman, Senior Attorney, Office
of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-
9342,<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(email). You may also
contact Blane Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 20, 2020, the Department
announced the issuance of the NPRM on Defining Unfair or Deceptive
Practices and placed a copy of the NPRM on the Department's website at
https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news and on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. On February
28, 2020, the NPRM was published in the Federal Register, and
interested parties were asked to provide comments on or before April
28, 2020. The NPRM also stated that late-filed comments will be
considered to the extent practicable.
    The NPRM on Defining Unfair or Deceptive Practices is intended to
provide greater clarity and certainty about the Department's
interpretation of unfair or deceptive practices in the context of
aviation consumer protection rulemaking and enforcement actions. By
written request, filed April 10, 2020, the National Consumers League,
along with eight other consumer advocacy organizations,\1\ asked the
Department to extend the comment period on the NPRM until sixty days
following the termination of the President's national emergency
declaration with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The advocates assert that the COVID-19 public health emergency has
created difficulties for advocates in researching and coordinating
their responses, and in contacting consumers to provide testimonials
with respect to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to the National Consumers League, the letter
requesting an extension of the comment period was signed by Business
Travel Coalition, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America,
Consumer Reports, EdOnTravel.com, FlyersRights.org, Travel Fairness
Now, and Travelers United.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airlines for America (A4A) filed a letter in the docket opposing
the request. A4A notes that the NPRM is deemed non-significant. A4A
also states that because the NPRM was issued in late February,
stakeholders have had adequate time to formulate a response.
    The Department has considered the request to extend the comment
period on the NPRM beyond the published 60-day comment period
carefully. Given the assertion from nine major consumer advocacy
organizations that the COVID-19 public health emergency has made it
difficult, if not impossible, for them to produce comments that would
substantially add to the record of this rulemaking by April 28, 2020,
and the low number of comments that the Department has received on this
rulemaking to date, the Department believes it is appropriate to
provide the public more time to submit comments on this rulemaking.
However, the Department finds that extending the comment period to a
date 60 days after the termination of the President's COVID-19 national
emergency declaration may unduly delay the timely issuance of this
priority rulemaking. Accordingly, the Department is extending the
comment period for an additional 30 days to May 28, 2020, which should
allow interested parties more time to prepare comments to the proposed
rule without delaying the rulemaking. The Department will continue to
consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

    Issued this 23rd day of April 2020, in Washington, DC, under
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(n).
Christina G. Aizcorbe,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-08996 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P