[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78367-78368]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1618]

Draft Prescription Drug User Fee Act V Information Technology
Plan; Availability for Comment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability for public comment of the draft information technology
(IT) plan entitled ``PDUFA V Information Technology Plan.'' This plan
is intended to provide FDA's approach for enhancing business processes,
data quality and consistency, supporting technologies, and IT
operations as described in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA)
Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures for Fiscal Years 2013
through 2017. FDA is publishing a draft version of the IT plan for
comment to allow industry and other interested stakeholders to provide
feedback as FDA moves towards a fully automated standards-based
environment that enhances the regulatory review process for human
pharmaceuticals.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by February 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
``PDUFA V Information Technology Plan'' to the Division of Drug
Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your

requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft plan.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft plan to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Ford, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The draft PDUFA V IT plan considers assumptions, available
resources, and statutory requirements that conform to the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), signed into law on
July 9, 2012. Section 1136 of FDASIA, Electronic Submission of
Applications, gives FDA the authority to require a standardized
electronic format for the submission of information and data in
standardized formats. Section 1136 addresses investigational new drug
applications, biologics license applications, and new drug applications
under the PDUFA program as well as abbreviated new drug applications
under the Generic Drug User Fee Act program and describes new standards
and processes affecting drug and biologics approvals, drug supply
chain, and other topics related to human pharmaceuticals. The draft
PDUFA V IT plan describes key activities for enabling progress toward
achieving PDUFA IT goals.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 20, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30818 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5433-5436]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02414]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0547]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk
Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on ``Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne
Illness Risk Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility
Types.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 9, 2018. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2012-N-0547 for ``Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness
Risk Factors in Selected Retail and Foodservice Facility Types.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each

proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension
of an existing collection of information, before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is
publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth
in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Retail and Foodservice Facility Types

OMB Control Number 0910-0744--Extension

I. Background

    From 1998 to 2008, FDA's National Retail Food Team conducted a
study to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors, preparation practices, and employee behaviors most commonly
reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as
contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail
level. Specifically, data was collected by FDA Specialists in retail
and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and
2008) to observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following
foodborne illness risk factors:
     Food from Unsafe Sources,
     Poor Personal Hygiene,
     Inadequate Cooking,
     Improper Holding/Time and Temperature, and
     Contaminated Equipment/Cross-Contamination.
    FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the
three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1 to 3).
Data from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect
trends in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether
progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of
foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice
facility types (Ref. 4).
    Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, in 2013-2014, FDA
initiated a new study in full service and fast food restaurants. This
study will span 10 years with a data collection currently being
conducted in 2017-2018 and another data collection planned for 2021-
2022 (the subject of this information collection request extension).

    Table 1--Description of the Facility Types Included in the Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility type                         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Service Restaurants..........  A restaurant where customers place
                                     their order at their table, are
                                     served their meal at the table,
                                     receive the service of the wait
                                     staff, and pay at the end of the
                                     meal.
Fast Food Restaurants.............  A restaurant that is not a full
                                     service restaurant. This includes
                                     restaurants commonly referred to as
                                     quick service restaurants and fast
                                     casual restaurants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the study is to:
     Assist FDA with developing retail food safety initiatives
and policies focused on the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
     Identify retail food safety work plan priorities and
allocate resources to enhance retail food safety nationwide;
     Track changes in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors in retail and foodservice establishments over time; and
     Inform recommendations to the retail and foodservice
industry and State, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory
professionals on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors.
    The statutory basis for FDA conducting this study is derived from
the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 243, section
311(a)). Responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the PHS Act
relative to food protection was transferred to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)). Additionally, the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the
Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) require FDA to provide assistance to other
Federal, State, and local government bodies.
    The objectives of the study are to:
     Identify the least and most often occurring foodborne
illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices in retail and
foodservice facility types during each data collection period;
     Track improvement and/or regression trends in the
occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors during the 10-year study
period;
     Examine potential correlations between operational
characteristics of food establishments and the control of foodborne
illness risk factors;
     Examine potential correlations between elements within
regulatory retail food protection programs and the control of foodborne
illness risk factors; and
     Determine the extent to which food safety management
systems and the presence of a certified food protection manager impact
the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
    The methodology to be used for this information collection is
described as follows. To obtain a sufficient number of observations to
conduct statistically significant analysis, FDA will conduct
approximately 400 data collections in each facility type. This sample
size has been calculated to provide for sufficient observations to be
95 percent confident that the compliance percentage is within 5 percent
of the true compliance percentage.
    A geographical information system database containing a listing of
businesses throughout the United States provides the establishment
inventory for the data collections. FDA samples establishments from the
inventory based on the descriptions in table 1. FDA does not intend to
sample operations that handle only prepackaged food items or conduct
low-risk food preparation activities. The ``FDA Food Code'' contains a
grouping of establishments by risk, based on the type of food
preparation that is normally conducted within the operation (Ref. 5).
The intent is to sample establishments that fall under risk categories
2 through 4.
    FDA has approximately 25 Retail Food Specialists (Specialists) who
serve as the data collectors for the 10-year study. The Specialists are
geographically dispersed throughout the

United States and possess technical expertise in retail food safety and
a solid understanding of the operations within each of the facility
types to be surveyed. The Specialists are also standardized by FDA's
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition personnel in the
application and interpretation of the FDA Food Code (Ref. 5).
    Sampling zones have been established that are equal to the 150-mile
radius around a Specialist's home location. The sample is selected
randomly from among all eligible establishments located within these
sampling zones. The Specialists are generally located in major
metropolitan areas (i.e., population centers) across the contiguous
United States. Population centers usually contain a large concentration
of the establishments FDA intends to sample. Sampling from the 150-mile
radius sampling zones around the Specialists' home locations provides
three advantages to the study:
    1. It provides a cross section of urban and rural areas from which
to sample the eligible establishments.
    2. It represents a mix of small, medium, and large regulatory
entities having jurisdiction over the eligible establishments.
    3. It reduces overnight travel and therefore reduces travel costs
incurred by the Agency to collect data.
    The sample for each data collection period is evenly distributed
among Specialists. Given that participation in the study by industry is
voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected establishment
is subject to change, substitute establishments have been selected for
each Specialist for cases where the restaurant facility is
misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling
to participate.
    Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists contact the
State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for
conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The
Specialist verifies with the jurisdiction that the facility has been
properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in
operation. The Specialist ascertains whether the selected facility is
under legal notice from the State or local regulatory authority. If the
selected facility is under legal notice, the Specialist will not
conduct a data collection, and a substitute establishment will be used.
An invitation is extended to the State or local regulatory authority to
accompany the Specialist on the data collection visit.
    A standard form is used by the Specialists during each data
collection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1--
``Establishment Information''; Section 2--``Regulatory Authority
Information''; and Section 3--``Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food
Safety Management System Assessment.'' The information in Section 1--
``Establishment Information'' of the form is obtained during an
interview with the establishment owner or person in charge by the
Specialist and includes a standard set of questions.
    The information in Section 2--``Regulatory Authority Information''
is obtained during an interview with the program director of the State
or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting
inspections for the selected establishment. Section 3 includes three
parts: Part A for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food
employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination,
proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards; Part B for
assessing the food safety management system being implemented by the
facility; and Part C for assessing the frequency and extent of food
employee hand washing. The information in Part A is collected from the
Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and
practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the
Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or
practice being observed. The information in Part B is collected by
making direct observations and asking follow up questions of facility
management to obtain information on the extent to which the food
establishment has developed and implemented food safety management
systems. The information in Part C is collected by making direct
observations of food employee hand washing. No questions are asked in
the completion of Section 3, Part C of the form.
    FDA collects the following information associated with the
establishment's identity: Establishment name, street address, city,
state, zip code, county, industry segment, and facility type. The
establishment identifying information is collected to ensure the data
collections are not duplicative. Other information related to the
nature of the operation, such as seating capacity and number of
employees per shift, is also collected. Data will be consolidated and
reported in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any
establishment included in the study.
    FDA has collaborated with the Food Protection and Defense Institute
to develop a web-based platform in FoodSHIELD to collect, store, and
analyze data for the Retail Risk Factor Study. This platform is
accessible to State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory
jurisdictions to collect data relevant to their own risk factor
studies. For the 2015-2016 data collection, FDA piloted the use of
hand-held technology for capturing the data onsite during the data
collection visits. The tablets that were made available for the data
collections were part of a broader Agency initiative focused on
internal uses of hand-held technology. The tablets provided for the
data collection presented several technical and logistical challenges
and increased the time burden associated with the data collection as
compared to the manual entry of data collections. FDA continues to
assess the feasibility for fully incorporating use of hand-held
technology in subsequent data collections during the 10-year study
period.
    When a data collector is assigned a specific establishment, he or
she conducts the data collection and enters the information into the
web-based data platform. The interface will support the manual entering
of data, as well as the ability to directly enter information in the
database via a web browser.
    The burden for the 2021-2022 data collection is as follows. For
each data collection, the respondents will include: (1) The person in
charge of the selected facility (whether it be a fast food or full
service restaurant) and (2) the program director (or designated
individual) of the respective regulatory authority. To provide the
sufficient number of observations needed to conduct a statistically
significant analysis of the data, FDA has determined that 400 data
collections will be required in each of the two restaurant facility
types. Therefore, the total number of responses will be 1,600 (400 data
collections x 2 facility types x 2 respondents per data collection).
    The burden associated with the completion of Sections 1 and 3 of
the form is specific to the persons in charge of the selected
facilities. It includes the time it will take the person in charge to
accompany the data collector during the site visit and answer the data
collector's questions. The burden related to the completion of Section
2 of the form is specific to the program directors (or designated
individuals) of the respective regulatory authorities. It includes the
time it will take to answer the data collectors' questions and is the
same regardless of the facility type.
    To calculate the estimate of the hours per response, FDA will use
the average

data collection duration for the same facility types during the 2013-
2014 data collection. FDA estimates that it will take the persons in
charge of full service restaurants and fast food restaurants 104
minutes (1.73 hours) and 82 minutes (1.36 hours), respectively, to
accompany the data collectors while they complete Sections 1 and 3 of
the form. In comparison, for the 2013-2014 data collection, the burden
estimate was 106 minutes (1.76 hours) in full service restaurants and
73 minutes (1.21 hours) in fast food restaurants. FDA estimates that it
will take the program director (or designated individual) of the
respective regulatory authority 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to answer the
questions related to Section 2 of the form. This burden estimate is
unchanged from the last data collection. Hence, the total burden
estimate for a data collection in a full service restaurant, including
the responses of both the program director and the person in charge, is
134 minutes (104 + 30) (2.23 hours). The total burden estimate for a
data collection in a fast food restaurant, including the responses of
both the program director and the person in charge, is 112 minutes (82
+ 30) (1.86 hours).
    Based on the number of entry refusals from the 2013-2014 baseline
data collection, we estimate a refusal rate of 2 percent for the data
collections within restaurant facility types. The estimate of the time
per non-respondent is 5 minutes (0.08 hours) for the person in charge
to listen to the purpose of the visit and provide a verbal refusal of
entry.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                                         Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                               Number of       Number of     Total  annual  Number of  non- responses  per   Total  annual
                 Activity                     respondents   responses  per     responses      respondents        non-       non- responses      Average  burden per  response       Total hours
                                                               respondent                                     respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021-2022 Data Collection (Fast Food                   400               1             400  ..............  ..............  ..............  1.36................................             544
 Restaurants)--Completion of Sections 1
 and 3.
2021-2022 Data Collection (Full Service                400               1             400  ..............  ..............  ..............  1.73................................             692
 Restaurants)--Completion of Sections 1
 and 3.
2021-2022 Data Collection-Completion of                800               1             800  ..............  ..............  ..............  0.5 (30 minutes)....................             400
 Section 2--All Facility Types.
2021-2022 Data Collection-Entry Refusals--               -               -               -              16               1              16  0.08 (5 minutes)....................            1.28
 All Facility Types.
                                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hours...............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ....................................        1,637.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden for this information collection has not changed since
the last OMB approval.

II. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. ``Report of the FDA Retail Food Program Database of Foodborne
Illness Risk Factors'' (2000). Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406023019/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM123546.pdf.
    2. ``FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk
Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and
Retail Food Store Facility Types (2004).'' Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406023011/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/UCM423850.pdf.
    3. ``FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk
Factors in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and
Retail Food Store Facility Types (2009).'' Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406023004/https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/ucm224321.htm.
    4. FDA National Retail Food Team. ``FDA Trend Analysis Report on
the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store
Facility Types (1998-2008).'' Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406022950/https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/ucm223293.htm.
    5. ``FDA Food Code.'' Available at: https://www.fda.gov/FoodCode.

    Dated: January 31, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-02414 Filed 2-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 15413]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Notice of Increase in Civil Penalty for Violations of National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Public notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the public that NHTSA has satisfied
the requirements in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act) necessary for increases in the maximum amount of civil
penalties that NHTSA may collect for violations of the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) to become effective.

DATES: Effective date: The amendments to 49 U.S.C 30165(a) authorized
by Section 24110(a) of the FAST Act are effective March 17, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, W41-211,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 4, 2015, the FAST Act, Public
Law 114-94, was signed into law. Section 24110 of the FAST Act
increases the maximum civil penalty that NHTSA may collect for each
violation of the Vehicle Safety Act to $21,000 per violation (currently
$7,000) and the maximum amount of civil penalties that NHTSA can
collect for a related series of violations to $105 million (currently
$35 million). In order for these increases to become effective, the
Secretary of Transportation must certify to Congress that NHTSA has
issued the final rule required by Section 31203 of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act. Section 31203 required NHTSA to
provide an interpretation of civil penalty factors in 49 U.S.C. 30165
for NHTSA\1\ to consider in determining the amount of penalty or
compromise for violations of the Vehicle Safety Act. Pub. L. 112-141,
Sec.  31203, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). The increases in maximum civil
penalties in Section 24110 of the FAST Act became effective the date of
the Secretary's certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA has been delegated the Secretary of Transportation's
authority to determine the amount of civil penalty or compromise for
violations of the Vehicle Safety Act. 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA issued the final rule required by Section 31203 of MAP-21 on
February 24, 2016. On March 17, 2016, the Secretary certified to
Congress by letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and to the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that
NHTSA had issued the Final Rule. Therefore, NHTSA shall enforce the
increased maximum civil penalties for violation of the Vehicle Safety
Act in 49 U.S.C. 30165 effective March 17, 2016.

    Authority: Pub. L. 114-94.

    Issued on: March 17, 2016.
Anthony Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2016-06433 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23801-23805]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD11-4-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Order Approving
Reliability Standard

April 21,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011.

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

    1. On February 11,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO), submitted a petition for Commission approval of
Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) Reliability Standard EOP-
008-1 (Loss of Control Center Functionality). The Reliability Standard
requires reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and
balancing authorities to have an operating plan and facilities for
backup functionality to ensure Bulk-Power System reliability in the
event that a control center becomes inoperable. NERC also requests that
the Commission approve the retirement of currently effective EOP-008-0
concurrent with the effectiveness of the Standard approved in this
Order.
    2. In this order, we approve Reliability Standard EOP-008-1,
finding that the Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. In
addition, we approve the retirement of EOP-008-0 as requested by NERC.
Also, we approve NERC's requested effective date, i.e., the date in
which applicable entities are subject to mandatory compliance, of 24
months after the first day of the first quarter after approval.

I. Background

    3. Currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-008-0 (Plans for
Loss of Control Center Functionality) contains a single Requirement R1,
which provides ``Each Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator
and Balancing Authority shall have a plan to continue reliability
operations in the event its control center becomes inoperable.''
Requirement R1 also identifies mandatory elements of the continuity
plan.
     4. On March 16,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693
approving 83 Reliability Standards proposed by NERC, including EOP
Reliability Standard EOP-008-0.\1\ In addition, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed the ERO to develop
modifications to EOP-008-0 to address specific issues identified by the
Commission. In particular, the Commission directed the ERO to develop a
modification through the Reliability Standards development process that
includes a Requirement that provides, as a minimum, for backup
capabilities that are independent from the primary control center,
capable to operate for a prolonged period corresponding to the time it
would take to replace the primary control center, and provide a minimum
set of tools and facilities to replicate the critical reliability
functions of the primary control center.\2\ The Commission directed
that the extent of the backup capability should be consistent with the
impact of the loss of the entity's primary control center on the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 FERC ] 61,053 (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2007).
    \2\ Id. P 663, 672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission also directed that reliability coordinators have
fully complete, dedicated backup control centers.\3\ In addition, the
Commission directed the ERO to modify the Reliability Standard to
require that transmission operators and balancing authorities having
operational control over significant portions of generation and load
have minimum backup capabilities that replicate the critical
reliability functions of the primary control center, but they may do so
through contracting for these services instead of through dedicated
backup control centers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. P 670
    \4\ Id. P 670, 672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. NERC Petition

A. NERC Description of the Benefits of Reliability Standard EOP-008-1

    6. In its February 11,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011 filing,\5\ NERC requests Commission
approval of

proposed Reliability Standard EOP-008-1. NERC states that EOP-008-1 is
intended to ensure that a plan is in place for backup functionality and
that facilities and personnel are prepared to implement that plan. NERC
states that the proposed Reliability Standard represents a significant
revision and improvement to the current Standard by eliminating gaps,
reducing ambiguity, eliminating fill-in-the-blank components, and
addressing the relevant Commission directives in Order No. 693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., February 11,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011
Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for
Approval of One Emergency Preparedness and Operations Reliability
Standard EOP-008-1 and Retirement of One Existing Reliability
Standard EOP-008-0 (NERC Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Discussing the benefits of EOP-008-1, NERC states that the
Reliability Standard: (1) Delineates what must be included in a plan
for backup functionality; (2) includes a provision for managing the
risk to the Bulk-Power System during the transition from primary to
backup functionality; (3) requires reliability coordinators to have a
dedicated facility for its backup functionality; (4) provides that
transmission operators and balancing authorities can have either a
dedicated facility or may contract for services to provide backup
functionality; (5) address the need for formal review and approval of
the plan for backup functionality; (6) mandates independence of the
primary and backup capabilities; (7) requires testing of the plan; and
(8) establishes a procedure for creating a plan to re-establish backup
capability following a catastrophic situation.\6\ In addition, NERC
discusses how EOP-008-1 satisfies the factors set forth in Order No.
672 for analyzing whether a Reliability Standard is just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public
interest.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NERC Petition at 4. Pursuant to 18 CFR 40.3 (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010), the ERO
must post on its Web site currently effective Reliability Standards.
NERC has posted Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 on the NERC Web site
at http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20[verbar]http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.
    \7\ NERC Petition at 8-18. Rules Concerning Certification of the
Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of Electric Reliability
Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|204, order on
reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reliability Standard EOP-008-1

    8. Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 contains eight Requirements for
the stated purpose of ensuring continued reliable operations of the
bulk electric system in the event that a control center becomes
inoperable. Requirement R1 requires each applicable entity to have a
current operating plan describing the manner in which it will continue
to meet its functional obligations in the event that its primary
control center functionality is lost. Requirement R2 instructs each
applicable entity to have a copy of its current plan for backup
functionality at its primary control center and at the location
providing backup functionality. Requirement R3 mandates that each
reliability coordinator have a backup control center that provides
functionality sufficient to maintain compliance with all Reliability
Standards that depend on primary control center functionality.
    9. Reliability Standard EOP-008-1, Requirement R4 directs balancing
authorities and transmission operators to have a backup functionality,
either through a facility or contracted services, to maintain
compliance with all Reliability Standards that depend on their primary
control center functionality. Requirement R5 requires each applicable
entity to review annually and approve its plan for backup
functionality, and Requirement R7 requires each applicable entity to
annually test and document the results of its plan demonstrating the
transition time between the simulated loss of the primary control
center and the full implementation of the backup functionality.
Requirement R6 mandates that primary and backup functionality cannot
depend on each other. Finally, each reliability coordinator, balancing
authority or transmission operator that experiences a loss of either
primary or backup functionality anticipated to last for more than six
months must, in accordance with Requirement R8, provide a plan to its
Regional Entity within six calendar months of the date when
functionality is lost showing how it will re-establish such
functionality.

III. Notice of Filing, Interventions and Comments

    10. On February 16,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011, notice of NERC's filing was published in
the Federal Register with interventions and protests due on or before
March 4,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011.\8\ Motions to intervene were timely filed by American
Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) and Modesto Irrigation District (MID). The
ISO/RTO Council (ISO/RTO) timely filed a motion to intervene and
comments supporting the adoption of proposed Reliability Standard EOP-
008-1 and the concurrent retirement of EOP-008-0. Pursuant to Rule 214
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,\9\ the timely,
unopposed motions to intervene serve to make AMP, MID, and ISO/RTO
parties to this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 13,345.
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    11. The Commission approves Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public
interest.\10\ By providing detailed requirements for what must be
included in a plan to meet functional obligations in the event a
primary control center is lost, by now requiring formal, annual
approval of such plans, and by specifically requiring reliability
coordinators to have backup facilities and transmission operators and
balancing authorities to have backup functionality, EOP-008-1
represents a significant improvement to the currently effective
Reliability Standard. The revised Standard addresses the relevant
directives in Order No. 693 and specifically requires, among other
things, independent backup capabilities, capable of operating for a
prolonged period, and providing functionality sufficient to maintain
compliance with all Reliability Standards that depend on primary
control functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 16 U.S.C. 824(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 requires that all applicable
entities have backup functionality. Reliability coordinators in
particular must have full backup control centers while balancing
authorities and transmission operators may elect to attain backup
functionality either by a dedicated facility or by contracted service.
This distinction recognizes the comparative difference in the scope of
responsibility for a reliability coordinator versus a balancing
authority or transmission operator, and the Standard satisfies the
Commission directives in this regard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Additionally, we note that Requirement R1 (section 1.5) permits
a transition time between the loss of the primary control center and
full implementation of backup functionality of up to two hours. NERC
states that, in the standards development process, some stakeholders
commented that the two hour transition period was too long, others
considered it too short, and some argued that the timeframe seemed to
weaken the current requirement.\12\ According to NERC, the standards
drafting team ``attempted to develop a reasonable number that would
allow for a backup control center to be placed sufficiently far away so
that the chances of a single catastrophe affecting both sites were
minimal, versus having it so far away that there may be a serious gap

in reliability during the intervening time before the backup is
operational.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NERC Petition at 37-38.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The Commission is concerned that the two hour transition period
may expose the grid to increased reliability risk without control
functionality. For this reason it is imperative that full backup
functionality occur as soon as possible after the loss of primary
control functionality. Nonetheless, until data from drills, exercises
and tests can support a specific time period, the Commission approves
the Reliability Standard but notes it may revisit this transition
timeframe once the applicable entities have developed experience
operating under this new Standard.
    15. Accordingly, the Commission approves Reliability Standard EOP-
008-1, effective the first day of the first calendar quarter twenty-
four months after Commission approval. Further, as requested by NERC,
we approve the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard
EOP-008-0 concurrent with the implementation date of EOP-008-1.

V. Violation Risk Factors/Violation Security Levels

    16. To determine a base penalty amount for a violation of a
Requirement within a Reliability Standard, NERC must first determine an
initial range for the base penalty amount. To do so, NERC assigns a
violation risk factor to each Requirement and sub-Requirement of a
Reliability Standard that relates to the expected or potential impact
of a violation of the Requirement on the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System. The Commission has established guidelines for evaluating the
validity of each violation risk factor assignment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, order on reh'g, 1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 FERC ] 61,145, at P 8-13 (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. NERC also will assign each Requirement and sub-Requirement one
of four violation severity levels--low, moderate, high, and severe--as
measurements for the degree to which the Requirement was violated in a
specific circumstance. On June 19,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2008, the Commission issued an order
establishing four guidelines for the development of violation severity
levels.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ]
61,284, at Phttp://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20-35, order on reh'g & compliance, 125 FERC ] 61,212
(http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. With respect to Reliability Standard EOP-008-1, NERC has
assigned violation risk factors only to the main Requirements and did
not propose violation risk factors for any of the sub-Requirements.\16\
NERC noted that such practice is consistent with NERC's August 10,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009
informational filing regarding the assignment of violation risk factors
and violation severity levels.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We note that in Version Two Facilities Design, Connections
and Maintenance Reliability Standards, Order No. 722, 126 FERC ]
61,255, at P 45 (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2009), the ERO proposed to develop violation risk
factors and violation severity levels for Requirements but not sub-
requirements. The Commission denied the proposal as ``premature''
and, instead, encouraged the ERO to ``develop a new and
comprehensive approach that would better facilitate the assignment
of violation severity levels and violation risk factors.'' As
directed, on March 5,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010, NERC submitted a comprehensive approach
that is currently pending with the Commission in Docket No. RR08-4-
005.
    \17\ NERC Petition at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. On May 5,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010, NERC incorporated by reference into Docket No.
RR08-4-005,\18\ its August 10,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009 Information Filing in which NERC
proposes assigning violation risk factors and violation severity levels
only to the main Requirements in each Reliability Standard, and not to
the sub-Requirements. Because the assignment of violation risk factors
and violation severity levels for EOP-008-1 is made in accordance with
NERC's pending petition, the Commission defers discussion of the
proposed violation risk factors and violation severity levels until
after the Commission issues a final order acting on NERC's petition in
Docket No. RR08-4-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Docket No. RR08-4-005 comprises NERC's March 5,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010
Violation Severity Level Compliance Filing submitted in response to
Order No. 722. See Order No. 722, 126 FERC ] 61,255 at P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Information Collection Statementhttp://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency action.\19\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 5 CFR 13http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments are solicited on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's
burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
    22. Rather than creating entirely new obligations with respect to
the loss of control center functionality, Reliability Standard EOP-008-
1 upgrades the existing planning requirements contained in EOP-008-0
and specifically requires reliability coordinators, balancing
authorities and transmission operators to have backup functionality.
Thus, this Order does not impose entirely new burdens on the effected
entities. For example, EOP-008-0 requires each applicable entity to
have a plan to continue reliable operations in the event its control
center becomes inoperable and to conduct reviews and tests, at least
annually, to ensure viability of the plan. This Order, however, imposes
new requirements regarding the approval, placement, documentation and
updating of plans as well as requires entities that may not already
possessing backup functionality to obtain, possibly through contractual
arrangements, backup capabilities.
    23. Burden Estimate: Our estimate below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of February 17,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011. According to the registry, there are 23 reliability coordinators,
1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 balancing authorities and 176 transmission operators that will be
involved in providing information. Under NERC's compliance registration
program, however, entities may be registered for multiple functions or,
particularly in the case of reliability coordinators, registered for
the same function with multiple regional entities, so these numbers
incorporate some double counting. The net number of entities responding
will be 215, consisting of 17 reliability coordinators, 94 entities
registered as both balancing authorities and transmission operators,
and 104 entities registered solely as either a balancing authority or a
transmission operator. This Order will require applicable entities to
revise their plans and document compliance with the Reliability
Standard's requirements. For those balancing authorities and
transmission operators that do not already comply with the Standard's
requirement for backup functionality, they will, at a minimum, be
required to contract for such services. We understand that all
reliability coordinators currently have backup control centers and
estimate that approximately 27 entities will have to procure backup
functionality. The estimated burden for the requirements in this Order
follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Number of
   FERC-725A  Data collection         Number of     annual responses  Hours per respondent per    Total annual
                                     respondents     per respondent           response                hours
                                               (A)               (B)  (C).....................       (A x B x C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review and possible revision of                215                 1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20......................             4,300
 plan (one-time).
Updating, approving, and                       215                 1  Compliance: 6...........             1,290
 maintaining records.
                                  ................  ................  Recordkeeping: 2........               430
Balancing authorities and                       27                 1  1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.....................             3,240
 transmission operators
 contracting for backup
 functionality (one-time).
Total one-time..................  ................  ................  ........................             7,540
Total recurring.................  ................  ................  ........................             1,7http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ................  ................  ........................             9,260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements and recordkeeping burden
associated with Reliability Standard EOP-008-1.
     Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Compliance/
Documentation + Contracting) = 9,260 hours.
     Total One-Time Compliance Cost = 7,540 hours @ $1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20/hour =
$904,800.
     Total Reoccurring Compliance Cost = 1,7http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 hours @ $1http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20/
hour = $http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|206,400.
     Total Recordkeeping Cost = 430 hours @ $28/hour = $10,240
     Total First Year Cost = $1,121,440.
     Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System.
     Action: FERC 725A, Proposed Modification to FERC-725A.
     OMB Control No: 1902-0244.
     Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for
profit institutions.
     Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
     Necessity of the Information: This Order approves revised
Reliability Standard that modifies an existing requirement regarding
preparing for the loss of control center functionality. Reliability
Standard EOP-008-1 requires entities to revise and authorize operating
plans for backup control center functionality. It also requires some
entities to procure such backup functionality, and in every case
imposes requirements to retain records.
    24. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DChttp://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone: (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202)
502-8663, fax: (http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 273-0873]. Comments on the requirements of this
order may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DChttp://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control Number
1902-0244 and the docket number of this Order in your submission.

VII. Environmental Analysis

    25. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20\ The
action taken in the Order falls within the categorical exclusion in the
Commission's regulations for orders that are clarifying, corrective or
procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\21\
Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \21\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \22\ generally
requires a description and analysis of orders that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed order and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\23\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt-hours.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \23\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \24\ 13 CFR 121.http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Comparison of the NERC compliance registry with data submitted
to the Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that
perhaps as many as 54 balancing authorities and transmission operators
to which the requirements of this Reliability Standard will apply will
be deemed small entities. Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 clarifies the
elements of a plan for the loss of control center functionality,
imposes approval and updating requirements for such plans, and requires
balancing authorities and transmission operators to have backup control
center functionality. Of the 54 small entities, each will incur the
compliance and recordkeeping costs of $3,176 associated with revising,
approving, maintaining and updating their plans for loss of control
center operability, but only that subset of small entities that has not
already obtained backup control center functionality, which we estimate
to be 27 entities, will face the one-time additional $14,400 burden of
contracting for such functionality. The Commission estimates that, in
addition to the cost of contracting, the first year's cost of obtaining
backup functionality will be approximately $210,000 with each
subsequent year costing $60,000. In aggregate, the Commission estimates
that this Reliability Standard may impose on small entities that do not
currently have backup functionality an initial cost of perhaps $227,576
with the cost of subsequent years being reduced to $60,776.
Accordingly, the cost of Reliability Standard EOP-008-1 should not
present a significant operating cost to a substantial number of small
entities.

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

IX. Effective Date

    29. This order will become effective June 27,http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011.

The Commission Orders

    (A) Reliability Standard EOP-008-1, submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation, is hereby approved, as discussed in
the body of this order.
    (B) Reliability Standard EOP-008-0 is hereby retired upon
implementation of EOP-008-1, as discussed in the body of this order.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc.http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011-10266 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20652]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 1975-109, 2777-115, 2061-088]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Application of Land Management
Plan Update for the Bliss, Upper Salmon Falls, and Lower Salmon Falls
Projects and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Land Management Plan Update.
    b. Project Nos.: 1975-109, 2777-115, and 2061-088.
    c. Date Filed: December 22, 2010.
    d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company.
    e. Name of Projects: Bliss, Upper Salmon Falls, and Lower Salmon
Falls Hydroelectric Projects.
    f. Location: The projects are located in south-central Idaho on the
Snake River from river mile 551 near Bliss to river mile 592 near
Hagerman in Twin Falls, Gooding, and Elmore counties.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: L. Lewis Wardle, Licensing Program
Coordinator, Idaho Power, P.O. Box 70, 1221 W Idaho Street, Boise, ID
83702,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Mark Ivy,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: May 6, 2011.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project numbers (P-1975-109, P-2777-115, and P-
2061-088) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of the Application: Idaho Power Company, licensee of
the Bliss, Upper Salmon Falls, and Lower Salmon Falls Hydroelectric
Projects, has filed a combined Land Management Plan (LMP) update for
the projects. The LMP is a comprehensive plan to manage project lands
including control of noxious weeds, protection and enhancement of
riparian habitats, and protection and enhancement of shoreline habitats
in a manner that is consistent with license requirements and project
purposes, and to address the needs and interests of stakeholders. While
information regarding the Upper and Lower Malad Hydroelectric Project
is also included in the LMP for informational purposes, the LMP is not
being updated for this project.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also 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. 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, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments 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 comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (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. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the amendment application.
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. If an intervener 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. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: April 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8770 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25522-25523]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10308]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66856; File No. SR-FICC-2012-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating To Remove Functionality
in the Government Securities Division's Rules That Is No Longer
Utilized by Participants

April 25, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On February 29, 2012, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-FICC-2012-02 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on March 16, 2012.\3\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 15822 (March 12, 2012),
77 FR 15822 (March 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    This rule change revises certain rules of the Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') to eliminate references to functions or
classifications that are either technologically obsolete or no longer
utilized by GSD's participants.

1. ``Non-Conversion Participants''/``Conversion Participants''

    When first implemented, the DVP System required all participants
that submitted when issued trades to resubmit those trades with final
money calculations on the night of Auction Date, after the Treasury
auction results were announced. Subsequent to the initial
implementation, enhancements were incorporated such that the DVP System
recalculated trades (repriced) based on auction results. FICC also
incorporated an option whereby participants could decide if they wanted
to resubmit their trades (participants who elected this option were
known as ``Non-Conversion Participants'') or take FICC's repricing
notification (participants who elected this option were known as
``Conversion Participants''). With the implementation of Interactive
Messaging in 2000, the few remaining Non-Conversion Participants agreed
to take FICC's calculations, rather than resubmit their trades to FICC.
As such, FICC proposed to remove references in the rules to Non-
Conversion Participants. Given that all participants who submit when-
issued transactions for matching/netting are subject to accepting
FICC's calculations for their trades based on Treasury auction results,
the proposed rule changes replace references to ``Conversion
Participants'' with ``Participants.''

2. Auction Priority Delivery Requests and Customer Delivery Requests
(``CDR''s)

    Auction Priority Delivery Requests, also known as CDRs, were
originally built for FICC's batch file transfer, which was the initial
proprietary method that participants used to submit trade activity to
FICC. This functionality allowed the dealer to instruct FICC to
withhold certain auction trades from the net to ensure that a priority
client received its auction allotment so the trade could not be netted
out during FICC's end of day netting process. However, when Interactive
Messaging was implemented in 2000, this instruction type was not
supported as it was no longer used. As a result, FICC proposed to
remove references in the rules to Auction Priority Delivery Requests
and CDRs.

3. Repo Substitution Criteria

    FICC initially provided optional fields for Repo Substitution
Criteria for trade submissions. However, over the years, participants
generally have not used these fields. Because the fields were provided
as an informational courtesy that has not been used by participants,
FICC is deleting references to those fields in its rules.
    In addition to the above-referenced changes, FICC proposed to make
the following additional technical corrections to the GSD rules:

--Terminal interfaces and video display terminals are currently
referenced in the rules. The terminals became obsolete when FICC
replaced them with a web browser interface. Because the terminals are
no longer in existence, FICC proposed to remove references to these
methods from the GSD rules.
--Currently, the ``Schedule of Required and Other Data Submission Items
from GCF Repo Transactions'' refers to ``Reverse dealer Exec. Id'' and
a ``Repo dealer Exec Id.'' When FICC began using the GSD RTTM web
format, these fields were eliminated because they did not have any
significance for GCF repo trades. As a result, FICC proposed to remove
these references from the rules.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
requires that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.\5\ The proposed rule change clarifies GSD's rules by
removing references to functions or classifications that are either
technologically obsolete or no longer utilized by GSD's participants.
The Commission believes that these clarifications will promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
for which FICC is responsible by ensuring that GSD's rules describe
only functions and classifications that are actually offered by GSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78a-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \7\ of the
Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2012-02) be, and
hereby is, approved.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact of efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10308 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51599-51601]
[DOCID:fr30au06-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 22, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC05-43-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.
    Description: Exelon Corp and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.
file an amendment to an interim fossil mitigation commitment in
connection with the proposed merger.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060810-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-152-000.
    Applicants: WPS Resources Corporation; Peoples Energy Corporation.
    Description: WPS Resources Corporation and Peoples Energy
Corporation submit their Joint Application for all required
authorizations and approvals under section 203 of the Federal Power Act
to effect the proposed merger transaction.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-153-000.
    Applicants: BG Dighton Power, LLC; Dighton Power Associates Ltd
Partnership.
    Description: Dighton Power Associates Ltd Partnership & BG Dighton
Power, LLC submit a joint application for sec 203 approval that may be
deemed to be required for DPA's sale & BG Dighton's purchase of
approximately 170 NM natural gas-fired combined-cycle electric
generation plant etc.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EC06-154-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Generation Company; Holyoke Water Power
Company; NU Enterprises, Inc.; Select Energy, Inc.; NE Energy, Inc.;
Mt. Tom Generating Company LLC; ECP Energy, LLC.
    Description: Northeast Generation Co, Holyoke Water Power Co, et
al. submit an application for authorization of transaction under
section 203 of the Federal Power Act and request waivers of filing
requirements etc.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG06-72-000.
    Applicants: Mt. Tom Generating Company LLC.
    Description: Mt Tom Generating Co, LLC submits a notice of self-
certification of exempt wholesale generator status re facilities in
Holyoke, MA.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EG06-73-000.
    Applicants: BG Dighton Power, LLC.
    Description: BG Dighton Power, LLC submits a notice of self-
certification of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-2948-009; ER00-2918-008; ER00-2917-008; ER05-
261-005; ER01-558-007; ER01-559-007; ER01-557-007; ER01-560-007; ER01-
556-007; ER01-1654-010; ER01-2641-008; ER02-2567-008; ER05-728-005;
ER01-1949-008; ER04-485-005.
    Applicants: Baltimore Gas & Electric Company; Constellation Power
Source Generation, Inc.; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.;
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.; Holland Energy, LLC; Wolf
Hills Energy, LLC; University Park Energy, LLC; Big Sandy Peaker Plant,
LLC; Handsome Lake Energy, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear; High Desert
Power Project, LLC; Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.; Constellation Energy
Commodities Group Maine, LLC; Power Provider LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, LLC.
    Description: The Constellation MBR Entities submit an errata to
their joint triennial market power update submitted on 8/14/06.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0224.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-565-020; ER97-2358-009; ER04-1233-008.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits its
Scheduling Coordinator Services Tariff Refund Report.

    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060816-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-1807-023; ER01-2020-020.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Carolina Power & Light Company submits an Energy
Imbalance Revenues Refund Report pursuant to Commission's 5/23/03
order.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060814-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-810-002.
    Applicants: TransAlta Centralia Generating L.L.C.
    Description: TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC submits its
compliance filing to inform the FERC that the Parties have recalculated
and agreed to a revised service factor beginning 10/1/06 etc., pursuant
to sections D.14 and D.15 of the Settlement Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1050-002.
    Applicants: AmerGen Energy Company LLC.
    Description: AmerGen Energy Company, LLC submits a revised version
of their FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 6.
    Filed Date: 07/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060731-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-993-001.
    Applicants: Orion Power MidWest, L.P.
    Description: Orion Power MidWest, LP submits its response to the
deficiency letter issued 7/13/06.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1006-001.
    Applicants: International Transmission Company; Midwest
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: International Transmission Co et al. submit Substitute
Original Sheet 1365Z.05A et al. to its Electric Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1 to be effective 7/1/06.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060816-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1124-001.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities submits the final notice of
cancellation of the Interconnection Agreement w/Eastern Kentucky Power
Cooperative, effective 8/31/06.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1223-001.
    Applicants: Fairchild Energy, LLC.
    Description: Fairchild Energy, LLC submits it amended Electric
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to become effective 7/5/06.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1310-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an amendment to its 7/
31/06 filing of an agreement for network integration transmission
service with American Electric Power Service Co. et al.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060816-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1351-000.
    Applicants: BP West Coast Products LLC.
    Description: BP West Coast Products, LLC submits a Notice of
Succession in order to request that the Commission re-designate the
name appearing on its market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060811-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1353-000.
    Applicants: Duke Power Company LLC.
    Description: Duke Power Company, LLC submits a non-conforming Long-
Term Transmission Service Agreement w/ North Carolina Municipal Power
Agency 1.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060814-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 01, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1361-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Tampa Electric Co submits a Notice of Cancellation of
its Contract for Sale and Purchase of Capacity and Energy with Florida
Power & Light Co. dated 9/10/79.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060816-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1366-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company; Holyoke Water
Company; Holyoke Power and Electric Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Co. on behalf of Holyoke
Water Power Co. and Holyoke Power & Electric Co. submits a revised
tariff sheet and notice of cancellation to cancel First Revised Rate
Schedule FPC 2.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1367-000.
    Applicants: BG Dighton Power, LLC.
    Description: BG Dighton Power, LLC submits a proposed rate schedule
under which they will have the authority to make market based wholesale
sales of electric energy & capacity.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1368-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc agent for Entergy Operating
Companies et al submits a mutually-executed Dynamic Transfer Operating
Agreement pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1369-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Co submits the Cycle 4 filing
with a proposed effective date of 9/1/06.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060822-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1370-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc agent for Alabama Power
Co et al. submits an initial Transmission Service Agreement for long-
term firm point-to-point transmission service under the Open Access
Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1371-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits a revised rate
sheet for FERC Rate Schedule 272 w/ the city of Vernon, California.

    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1373-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revised pages to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff intended to implement a rate change for
Westar Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1374-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an executed
Construction Service Agreement with Benson Wind Farm, LLC et al
pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 08/16/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 06, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1375-000.
    Applicants: Lumberton Power, LLC.
    Description: Lumberton Power, LLC submits an application for order
approving market based rates and request for waiver of 60-day notice
period.
    Filed Date: 08/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 07, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1376-000.
    Applicants: Elizabethtown Power, LLC.
    Description: Elizabethtown Power LLC submits an application for an
order approving market based rates and requests for waiver of 60-Day
notice period pursuant to section 205.
    Filed Date: 08/17/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060818-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 07, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES06-60-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: MDU Resources Group, Inc submits its application for
authorization to issue up to $750,000,000 worth of its securities and
authorization to engage in methods of issuance other than competitive
bidding and negotiated offers.
    Filed Date: 08/15/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060817-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 05, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH06-104-000; HC06-1-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Midwest, Inc; Midwest Bottle Gas Co.
    Description: Consolidated Midwest Inc and Midwest Bottle Gas Co
submits a notice of Holding Co Status and Notice of Waiver pursuant to
the PUHCA and 18 CFR section 366.1.
    Filed Date: 08/09/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060815-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive E-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(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. E6-14388 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P