Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-06-18 · DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY · Notices

Notices. Notice

40,394 words·~184 min read·/register/2007/06/18/07-2977

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-476-000] Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff June 8, 2007. Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Colorado Interstate Gas Company
(CIG)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective July 7, 2007: Fifth Revised Sheet No. 180 Original Sheet No. 180A Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 282 Original Sheet No. 282A Third Revised Sheet No. 319 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11652 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-479-000] Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff June 8, 2007. Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets with a proposed effective date of September 1, 2007: Third Revised Sheet No. 228 Original Sheet No. 540A Original Sheet No. 540B Original Sheet No. 540C Original Sheet No. 540D Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11649 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-478-000] Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff June 8, 2007. Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, effective September 1, 2007: Second Revised Sheet No. 86 Original Sheet No. 333D Original Sheet No. 333E Original Sheet No. 333F Original Sheet No. 333G Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11650 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP99-220-024] Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of Negotiated Rate Agreement June 8, 2007. Take notice that on June 1, 2007, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for disclosure, a transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule FT entered into by Great Lakes and ANR Pipeline Company
(ANR)(FT Service Agreement). The FT Service Agreement being filed reflects a negotiated rate arrangement between Great Lakes and ANR commencing January 1, 2008. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11655 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-480-000] Hardy Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff June 11, 2007. Take notice that on June 6, 2007, Hardy Storage Company, LLC (Hardy) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective July 6, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11644 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL06-19-003] Illinois Municipal Electric Agency; Notice of Compliance Filing June 8, 2007. Take notice that on June 1, 2007, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency filed a revised tariff sheet for Rate Schedule No. 1, in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) Order No. 614, 18 CFR 35.7 and the Commission's May 3, 2007 Order, “Order Approving Uncontested Settlement Agreement,” 119 FERC ¶ 61,112 (2007). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11648 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-474-000] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing June 8, 2007. Take notice that on May 31, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 102nd Revised Sheet No. 9, to become effective June 1, 2007. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11653 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RR07-11-000] North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Order Approving Regional Reliability Standards for the Western Interconnection and Directing Modifications Issued June 8, 2007. *Before Commissioners:* Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff. 1. On March 26, 2007, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC)submitted for approval eight proposed regional Reliability Standards for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). The proposed regional Reliability Standards would apply in the Western Interconnection in addition to the 83 mandatory Reliability Standards developed by NERC that will take effect on a nationwide basis beginning in June 2007. 1 The proposed regional Reliability Standards would allow the continuation of certain reliability practices that are currently in effect in the Western Interconnection. As discussed below, pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission approves the proposed regional Reliability Standards. As a separate action, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directs WECC to develop several specific modifications to the regional Reliability Standards when WECC develops, through its Reliability Standards development process, permanent, replacement Reliability Standards. 1 *See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System* , Order No. 693, 118 FERC ¶ 61,218 (March 16, 2007), 72 FR 16,416 (April 4, 2007), *reh'g pending.* I. Background A. EPAct 2005 and Mandatory Reliability Standards 2. In August 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law. 2 EPAct 2005 adds a new section 215 to the FPA, which requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO)to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards. 3 Before a Reliability Standard may take effect, the ERO must submit the standard to the Commission and obtain the Commission's approval. 4 Once approved, the Reliability Standard can be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission can independently enforce the Reliability Standard. 5 2 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), *to be codified* at 16 U.S.C. 824o. 3 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)-(e). 4 16 U.S.C. 824o(d). 5 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3). 3. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA. 6 Pursuant to Order No. 672, the Commission certified one organization, NERC, as the ERO. 7 Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a Regional Entity. 8 A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority from the ERO. 9 When the ERO reviews a regional Reliability Standard that would be applicable on an Interconnnection-wide basis and that has been proposed by a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis, the ERO must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 10 6 *Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards* , Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 (2006), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006). 7 *See North American Electric Reliability Corp.* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 ( *ERO Certification Order* ), *order on reh'g and compliance* , 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006). 8 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4). 9 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4) *.* 10 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(3); 18 CFR 39.5(b). 4. When the ERO submits a proposed Reliability Standard to the Commission, the ERO must:
(1)Describe the basis and purpose of the Reliability Standard;
(2)summarize the development and review proceedings that led to the Reliability Standard; and
(3)demonstrate that the Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 11 11 18 CFR 39.5(a). 5. In reviewing the ERO's submission, the Commission will give due weight to the ERO's technical expertise, except concerning the effect of a proposed Reliability Standard on competition. 12 The Commission will also give due weight to the technical expertise of a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis with respect to a proposed Reliability Standard to be applicable within that Interconnection. 13 Moreover, the Commission may give “due deference” to the advice of a Regional Advisory Body that is organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. 14 12 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). 13 *Id.* 14 16 U.S.C. 824o(j). A Regional Advisory Body is an entity established upon petition to the Commission that is organized to advise the ERO, a Regional Entity or the Commission regarding certain matters including whether a Reliability Standard proposed to apply within the region is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 18 CFR 39.13(c) (2006). 6. The Commission may approve a proposed Reliability Standard if the Commission finds it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 15 In addition, the Commission explained in Order No. 672 that “uniformity of Reliability Standards should be the goal and the practice, the rule rather than the exception.” 16 Yet, the Commission recognized that “the goal of greater uniformity does not, however, mean that regional differences cannot exist. 17 The Commission then provided the following guidance: 15 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). 16 Order No. 672 at P 290. 17 *Id.* at 291. As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest, as required by the statute:
(1)A regional difference that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and
(2)a regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. 18 18 *Id.* B. WECC 7. WECC is responsible for overseeing transmission system reliability in the Western Interconnection since 2002, when WECC was formed from predecessor reliability organizations. The WECC region encompasses nearly 1.8 million square miles, including 14 western U.S. states, the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and the northern portion of Baja California in Mexico. WECC developed a Reliability Management System
(RMS)pursuant to which transmission operators in the Western Interconnection agreed by contract to be bound by the WECC reliability criteria and sanctions for non-compliance. According to WECC, the criteria are recognized by all WECC members but are contractually binding only on members that signed an RMS Agreement. 19 19 *See* WECC April 17, 2007 Comments at 16. 8. In an April 19, 2007 order, the Commission accepted delegation agreements between NERC and each of eight Regional Entities. 20 In the April 19 Order, the Commission accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. In addition, the Commission accepted WECC's Standards Development Manual which sets forth WECC's Reliability Standards development process. 21 The Commission also directed WECC to make certain clarifications to its Standards Development Manual in a filing to be submitted within 180 days of the order. 20 *North American Electric Reliability Corp.* , 119 FERC ¶ 61,060 at P 432
(2007)( *April 19 Order* ). 21 *Id.* at PP 469-470. C. The Eight Proposed Regional Reliability Standards 9. NERC has submitted for the Commission's approval the following eight regional Reliability Standards that were proposed to NERC by WECC to apply in the Western Interconnection: WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves) WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 (Qualified Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 (Certification of Protective Relay Applications and Settings) WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 (Protective Relay and Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation) WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 (Transmission Maintenance) WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 (Operating Transfer Capability) WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 (Automatic Voltage Regulators) WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 (Power System Stabilizers) 10. In its March 26, 2007 filing (NERC Filing), NERC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standards are translations of existing reliability criteria under WECC's RMS program. According to NERC, WECC developed most of the criteria in the late 1990s in response to a series of black-outs in the Western Interconnection. 22 The proposed regional Reliability Standards would make eight of those RMS criteria binding on the applicable subset of users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System in the United States portion of the Western Interconnection, as identified in each proposed standard. The regional Reliability Standards would supplement rather than replace the Commission-approved Reliability Standards developed by the ERO that will take effect in June 2007. 22 NERC Filing at 5-6. 11. In translating WECC's existing practices to proposed regional Reliability Standards, WECC proceeded as follows. 23 In 2006, a WECC task force identified criteria in the RMS Agreement that, in the task force's view, should be binding on all users, owners and operators of the regional Bulk-Power System. The task force chose eight of the identified criteria that have the highest priority and that can be implemented in the near term. WECC then used expedited procedures to develop the eight regional Reliability Standards. WECC's rules provide that, when WECC develops a Reliability Standard under expedited procedures, WECC must later develop a permanent, replacement standard using more extensive procedures. 23 *See id.* , Ex. C (Record of Development, Comments and Correspondence). 12. On October 5, 2006, using its expedited procedures, WECC solicited comment on whether the eight regional Reliability Standards accurately reflect practices under the RMS Agreement. Commenters raised concerns that sanctions under the eight regional Reliability Standards are inconsistent with NERC Reliability Standards, do not provide clear guidance for measuring compliance, and might be applied in an anti-competitive manner. 24 The task force responded that the regional Reliability Standards would remain in effect for at most one year and that WECC would consider the commenters' concerns when developing permanent, replacement standards. 25 WECC's Board of Directors approved the eight regional Reliability Standards on January 5, 2007. 24 *Id.* , Ex. C, Attachment 1. 25 *Id.* , Ex. A at 1 and Ex. C, Attachment 2 at 8. 13. On December 22, 2006, in anticipation of approval by its board, WECC submitted the proposed regional Reliability Standards to NERC. On January 9, 2007, NERC responded with detailed comments. According to NERC, its primary concern was that the sanctions in the proposed regional Reliability Standards were inconsistent with NERC Sanction Guidelines. 26 NERC's January 9 report also identified NERC's preferred nomenclature for Reliability Standards, identified NERC's preferred format for submission, and identified language in the proposed regional Reliability Standards that NERC found ambiguous or incorrect. 27 By letter dated February 28, 2007, WECC responded by committing to address the shortcomings that NERC had identified when WECC develops permanent, replacement standards. 28 26 *Id.* at 3-4. *See also ERO Certification Order* at P 299. 27 *Id.* , Ex. C, Attachment 3. 28 *Id.* , Ex. C, Attachment 4. 14. Also in response to WECC's submission, NERC initiated a 45-day comment period. NERC received six sets of comments. NERC found that WECC had addressed the commenters' concerns by committing to correct shortcomings in the proposed regional Reliability Standards within one year of Commission approval. NERC generally applied a rebuttable presumption that the proposed regional Reliability Standards meet applicable requirements. However, because each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards contains a sanction table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanction Guidelines, the NERC board concluded that the rebuttable presumption was overcome with respect to this one component of the proposed standards. 29 Finally, NERC found that the proposed one-year term was inconsistent with the Commission's prior invalidation of automatic expiration dates for Reliability Standards. 30 29 NERC Filing at 9. 30 *Id.* at 2-4, 8-9 ( *citing North American Electric Reliability Corp.* , 118 FERC 61,030 at P 30 (2007)). 15. On February 8, 2007, the Western Interconnection Regional Advisory Body (WIRAB) advised NERC that it should approve the proposed regional Reliability Standards as necessary for Reliable Operation of the Western Interconnection and as meeting the legal standard for approval set forth in section 215 of the FPA. 31 31 *Id.* at 8-9. *In Governors of Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,061 at P 27 (2006), the Commission established WIRAB as a Regional Reliability body pursuant to section 215(j) of the FPA. 16. On March 2007, NERC approved the proposed regional Reliability Standards on the conditions that WECC:
(1)Remove the one-year term limitation;
(2)address the shortcomings 32 in the standards within one year of approval by the Commission, including removing the sanctions table that conflicts with the NERC Sanction Guidelines;
(3)until the WECC sanction table is removed, follow the NERC Sanction Guidelines to the maximum extent possible within the limits of the WECC sanction table; and
(4)monitor and enforce the standards under a delegation agreement between NERC and WECC, once that agreement is approved. 33 32 The shortcomings in the regional Reliability Standards were identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. *See* NERC Filing, Ex. C at 128-139. 33 *Id.* at 8-9. 17. NERC submitted its present request for the Commission's approval on March 26, 2007. In April 2007, the Commission approved 83 ERO Reliability Standards that apply nation-wide, except for Alaska and Hawaii. NERC and WECC request that the proposed regional Reliability Standards take effect as soon as practical and, if possible, on the same day as the nation-wide Reliability Standards. D. Notice of Filing and Responsive Pleadings 18. Notice of the NERC Filing was published in the **Federal Register** , 72 Fed. Reg. 17,544 (April 9, 2007), with interventions, comments and protests due on or before April 17, 2007. Motions to intervene were filed by Modesto Irrigation District, New York Transmission Owners, Southern California Edison Company, and Transmission Agency of Northern California. Motions to intervene and comment or protest were filed by PacifiCorp, WECC, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (Xcel), PPL EnergyPlus, LLC and PPL Montana, LLC (PPL), and Cogeneration Association of California and Energy Producers and Users Coalition (California Cogeneration). WIRAB submitted timely advice to the Commission regarding the NERC Filing. An untimely motion to intervene was filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 1. Comments in Support 19. WECC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standards, which are exact translations of existing regional criteria, either address matters not addressed in the Commission-approved ERO Reliability Standards or contain more stringent requirements than the ERO standards. 34 WECC states that, with the exception of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, the WECC regional Reliability Standard that implements the West's unique approach to mitigation of unscheduled flow, which the Commission approved as superior to the ERO Reliability Standard, 35 none of the regional Reliability Standards in any way displace the ERO requirements approved by the Commission. Rather, users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection will still be required to comply with all of the requirements of the approved ERO Reliability Standards. 34 Our discussion below of each regional Reliability Standard includes WECC's explanation of how it is more stringent than the relevant ERO Reliability Standard. 35 WECC Comments at 14 ( *citing* Order No. 693 at P 964). 20. WECC contends that the eight regional Reliability Standards satisfy the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria for approval. It states that only a few commenters raised substantive concerns in the WECC standard development process regarding several potentially ambiguous terms such as “load responsibility,” “firm transactions,” and “Receiver;” and that WECC has committed to address these issues in developing permanent regional Reliability Standards. 21. WECC acknowledges that the sanctions tables in the proposed regional Reliability Standards differ from the NERC Sanction Guidelines. WECC states that it plans to propose replacement standards that incorporate the NERC Sanction Guidelines and address other concerns of NERC and stakeholders. WECC also explains that the regional sanctions would apply only when an offense was not covered by a sanction under the ERO Reliability Standards and that the regional Reliability Standards preclude the possibility of being sanctioned under both the WECC and ERO Reliability Standards for the same non-compliance occurrence. 22. WIRAB advises that the proposed regional Reliability Standards are necessary for the Reliable Operation of the Western Interconnection and should take effect on the effective date of the 83 ERO Reliability Standards. WIRAB also advises reinstatement of the one-year term limitation, noting that WECC approved the regional Reliability Standards only as interim standards. WIRAB suggests that it is unclear that NERC has authority to eliminate the one-year term limitation. Finally, WIRAB expresses concern that NERC effectively disregarded the statutory rebuttable presumption without sufficient legal analysis. 36 36 WIRAB at 8-9 ( *citing* NERC Request, Appendix B at 4-5). 23. PacifiCorp states that, given the unique nature of the Western transmission system, it supports the eight regional Reliability Standards as necessary for addressing reliability concerns of the Western Interconnection. 2. Protests 24. Xcel, PPL and California Cogeneration filed protests or comments in opposition to one or more of the proposed regional Reliability Standards. California Cogeneration objects to proposed regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves), which, in relevant part, requires balancing authorities to maintain operating reserves equal to a stated percentage of “load responsibility.” According to California Cogeneration, “load responsibility” should not include behind-the-meter load that a cogenerator serves at its industrial or commercial host. It asserts that a balancing authority is not obligated to serve that load in the case of an outage on the Bulk-Power System and therefore should not be required to maintain associated reserves. 37 37 California Cogeneration Comments at 6 ( *citing California Independent System Operator Corp.* , 96 FERC ¶ 63,015 (2001)). 25. PPL, which owns and operates electrical facilities and markets electricity in the Western Interconnection, objects to WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, addressing the mitigation of unscheduled flows. According to PPL, WECC has not justified the need for this regional Reliability Standard, which imposes requirements on “receivers” that are not identified as an applicable entity, and improperly imposes mitigation obligations on load-serving entities
(LSEs)and marketers that lack authority or ability to comply with those obligations. 26. Xcel, which owns generation and transmission facilities and serves electricity customers in the Western Interconnection, argues that the Commission lacks authority to review the proposed regional Reliability Standards because WECC was not a Regional Entity at the time it submitted the proposed regional Reliability Standards to NERC. Xcel asserts that the WECC Reliability Standards development process used to develop these eight regional Reliability Standards would be invalid to the extent that the Commission directs changes to that process. Xcel contends that NERC, in eliminating the one-year interim status of the regional Reliability Standards, has effectively approved the regional Reliability Standards on a permanent instead of interim basis. Further, Xcel raises substantive objections that are discussed below in the context of the relevant regional Reliability Standard. II. Discussion A. Procedural Matters 27. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2006), the timely, unopposed motions to intervene serve to make the entities that filed them parties to this proceeding. We will grant PG&E's late motion to intervene, given the early stage of this proceeding and the absence of undue delay, prejudice or burden to the parties. B. General and Procedural Objections to the Regional Reliability Standards 1. WECC Reliability Standards Development Process 28. As discussed above, Xcel argues that the Commission only has the authority to consider Reliability Standards proposed by the ERO or a Regional Entity. On April 19, 2007, subsequent to Xcel's protest, the Commission accepted the proposed Regional Delegation Agreements, and accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. 38 Thus, we consider this objection by Xcel to be moot. 38 *April 19 Order* at P 432. 29. Xcel also contends that “to the extent the Commission directs changes to WECC's standards development process that differ from the process used to develop these WECC Standards, those standards will have been developed pursuant to processes that were inconsistent with WECC's own rules.” 39 The Commission, in the *April 19 Order,* accepted WECC's Standards Development Manual, 40 and WECC's eight proposed regional Reliability Standards were developed using the process set forth in this manual. The Commission also directed WECC to develop several changes to the manual. 41 However, the record of WECC's development of the proposed regional Reliability Standards indicates that Xcel had full opportunity to participate and raise its concerns in the (what is now a Commission-approved) stakeholders process, as well in the NERC posting of the WECC regional Reliability Standards for comment. 42 Accordingly, we deny Xcel's protest on this issue. 39 Xcel Comments at 8. 40 *April 19 Order* at P 469. 41 *Id.* at P 470. 42 *See* , *e.g.* , Ex. C at Attachment 2 at 5, Attachment 4 at 23-27. 2. Term Limitation 30. As discussed above, WECC had proposed that the regional Reliability Standards would be interim standards that would remain in effect for a maximum of one year after Commission approval. Specifically, each regional Reliability Standard includes a statement that it will remain in effect “for one year from the date of Commission approval or until a North American Standard or a revised [WECC] Regional Reliability Standard goes into place, whichever occurs first.” During the interim, WECC would develop permanent standards that, upon Commission approval, would replace the interim standards. 31. NERC, however, accepted the regional Reliability Standards on the condition that “the standards shall remain mandatory and enforceable until they are revised, replaced or withdrawn in a subsequent standards action, including approval of the revision, replacement, or withdrawal by the Commission.” 43 NERC explained that it imposed this condition to be consistent with a Commission order which provided that, with regard to a similar provision in NERC's standards development procedure, once a Reliability Standard is made effective under section 215 of the FPA, it can only be revised, replaced or withdrawn by a further action that requires Commission approval. 43 NERC Filing at 10-11. *See also id.* at Ex. B at 6-7 (March 12, 2007, NERC Board of Trustees Decision on WECC Reliability Standards). 32. WECC, WIRAB and Xcel object to NERC's elimination of the one-year expiration date. WECC and WIRAB state that the entities that voted in favor of the regional Reliability Standards did so with the understanding that they were voting for temporary standards, not standards that would continue indefinitely until replaced. 44 WIRAB states that, while it agrees with the policy that urgent action standards should not have sunset dates, it is concerned that imposing the rule with respect to the eight WECC regional Reliability Standards will abridge the due process of WECC members that approved them. Likewise, Xcel remarks that WECC postponed substantive responses to stakeholders' comments based on the rationale that it was proposing the standards on an interim basis. 44 *See* WECC Comments at 7. 33. We affirm NERC's decision to eliminate the one-year term limitation. NERC's decision is consistent with our precedent. In the *ERO Certification Order* , the Commission directed NERC to establish a process for adopting an interim Reliability Standard on an expedited basis, where the standard might be adopted later on a permanent basis, without any possibility that the interim standard would expire in the interim. 45 NERC subsequently revised its “urgent action” procedures to remove the automatic one year expiration provision. In accepting this revision, the Commission explained that “It is sufficient * * * to allow the interim Reliability Standard to remain in effect until it is made permanent or replaced by a permanent Reliability Standard, or possibly even its withdrawal as a Reliability Standard so long as it is understood that these actions are all subject to Commission approval.” 46 WECC developed the eight regional Reliability Standards pursuant to its Expedited Process for Urgent Action Interim Standards (Expedited Process). 47 Thus, our concerns regarding NERC's urgent action procedures apply equally to WECC's Expedited Process. 45 *ERO Certification Order* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 at P 253. 46 *North American Electric Reliability Corp.* , 118 FERC ¶ 61,030 at P 30 (2007). 47 WECC Comments at 5. 34. The commenters, however, are mistaken that the elimination of the one-year expiration date necessarily converts these from interim to permanent regional Reliability Standards. WECC is still committed pursuant to its Expedited Process to completing the development of permanent replacement standards. 48 Moreover, as another condition of approval, NERC required WECC to “meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified in the standards * * * over the course of the next year.” 49 Thus, we disagree with the commenters that NERC, in eliminating the one-year expiration date, has made the regional Reliability Standards permanent or thwarted due process. NERC's decision will assure that, if WECC is unable to develop permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standards within one year, the interim standards that WECC represents are crucial for reliability within the Western Interconnection will not automatically expire. 48 *Id.* WECC represents that it expects to complete permanent, replacement standards within one year for most of the interim standards. *See id.* at 7. 49 NERC Filing, Ex. B at 7. 3. NERC's Application of the Rebuttable Presumption 35. Section 215(d)(3) of the FPA provides that, when a Reliability Standard is submitted to the ERO by an Interconnection-wide Regional Entity, the ERO must rebuttably presume that the standard meets statutory criteria for approval. 50 In Order No. 672, the Commission explained that the rebuttable presumption refers to the burden of proof before the ERO. 51 Thus, a party that objects to a proposed Reliability Standard before the ERO must demonstrate that it does not meet criteria for approval. If the ERO finds that the presumption is not adequately rebutted, it must accept the proposed Reliability Standard from a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. 52 50 16 U.S.C. 842o(d)(3); 18 CFR 39.5(b). 51 Order No. 672 at P 301. 52 *Id.* 36. Here, NERC correctly applied the rebuttable presumption to WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. However, the NERC Board found that “[b]ecause each of the proposed standards contains a sanctions table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanctions Guidelines, the proposed standards have lost the rebuttable presumption that such standards would otherwise have.” 53 NERC then approved the proposed regional Reliability Standards with the condition that WECC conform the sanctions table to NERC's Sanction Guidelines and that, in the interim, WECC follow the NERC guidelines to the maximum extent possible. 53 NERC Filing, Ex. B at 4-5. 37. WIRAB disagrees with the manner in which NERC dismissed the statutory presumption. It asserts that NERC failed to provide an adequate analysis regarding the reasonableness, potential discriminatory impacts, or the broader public interest at stake to support a finding that rebuts the presumption. 38. In the first instance, WIRAB's concern is only hypothetical since NERC, after determining that the rebuttable presumption should not apply, determined that the regional Reliability Standards met the statutory criteria for approval. Moreover, it appears that WIRAB interprets NERC as having completely disregarded the rebuttable presumption. The Commission believes that the better understanding, supported by NERC's filing, is that NERC determined that the rebuttable presumption was overcome “with respect to this component of the proposed standards,” *i.e.* , the sanctions table. 54 NERC supported this determination by explaining that NERC staff and industry stakeholders identified a number of shortcomings, the most significant of which is the sanction table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanction Guidelines. 55 Although NERC's explanation is succinct, the Commission concludes that NERC has articulated a sufficient rationale for finding that the rebuttable presumption with regard to this one component was overcome. In general, however, NERC should provide a robust discussion of its reasoning for finding that the rebuttable presumption has been overcome. 54 *Id.* at 9. 55 *Id.* at 10. 4. Potential for Dual Penalties 39. Xcel protests that the proposed WECC regional Reliability Standards impose an unfair burden because, according to Xcel, the proposed standards are duplicative of Commission-approved NERC Reliability Standards. Thus, Xcel contends that the regional Reliability Standards present the risk of dual penalties for the same offense. 40. We reject Xcel's protest on this issue. Each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards provides that “[a]t no time shall this regional Standard be enforced in addition to a similar North American Standard.” 56 WECC, in its comments, makes clear that the intent of this language is to ensure that there would not be dual sanctions for the same offense. 57 Thus, we conclude that the regional Reliability Standards will not result in duplicative penalties resulting from the same non-compliance event. 56 *See, e.g.* , WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 § A5. 57 *See* WECC Comments at 2, n.1. 5. Need for the Proposed Standards 41. In reviewing a proposed Reliability Standard, we consider, in relevant part, whether it would address a reliability goal. 58 Here, WECC, WIRAB and NERC each represent that the proposed regional Reliability Standards would enhance regional reliability by making binding, throughout the United States portion of the Western Interconnection, reliability practices that are currently implemented in the Western Interconnection on a voluntary basis. As noted above, those practices are currently legally binding only on signatories to the RMS Agreement. WECC and NERC explain that Commission approval would extend the compliance obligations of the regional Reliability Standards beyond the RMS signatories to all applicable users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection. According to NERC, having the regional Reliability Standards approved as mandatory under section 215 of the FPA provides significant additional authority for compliance and enforcement. 58 Order No. 672 at P 324. 42. Xcel, on the other hand, asserts that the proposed standards are unnecessary, reasoning that the RMS Agreement will remain in effect and is sufficient to protect reliability. 43. We agree with WECC, WIRAB and NERC that approval of the proposed regional Reliability Standards under section 215 would enhance reliability in the Western Interconnection by making WECC's current practices binding on all relevant entities in the region and by strengthening WECC's compliance and enforcement authority. WECC's current practices were developed in response to concrete and significant reliability problems in the Western Interconnection in the mid-1990s. According to WECC, reliability in the region has improved since the practices have been in effect. When we first approved the practices in 1999, we lacked full jurisdiction over reliability and therefore could not impose the practices on a mandatory basis. While we laud WECC members for their voluntary compliance by contract, we believe that statutorily-based and mandatory Reliability Standards will better ensure the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. C. Discussion of WECC's Regional Reliability Standards 1. WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves) 44. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires that adequate generating capacity be available at all times to maintain scheduled frequency and avoid loss of firm load following transmission or generation contingencies. The regional Reliability Standard applies to balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups
(RSGs)with provision for agents to provide administrative duties. A balancing authority or reserve sharing group must maintain minimum operating reserves, defined as the sum of:
(1)Regulating reserves;
(2)contingency reserves;
(3)additional reserve for interruptible imports; and
(4)additional reserve for on-demand obligations. WECC requires balancing authorities to maintain an amount of contingency reserves: Sufficient to meet the NERC Disturbance Control Standard BAL-002-0, equal to the greater of:
(a)The loss of generating capacity due to forced outages of generation or transmission equipment that would result from the most severe single contingency; or
(b)The sum of five percent of the load responsibility served by hydro generation and seven percent of the load responsibility served by thermal generation. Further, the contingency reserve must be composed of at least 50 percent spinning reserves, which must be capable of ramping and being fully deployed within ten minutes. 45. WECC's regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC's Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 (Disturbance Control Performance), which requires a balancing authority (either directly or by participating in a reserve sharing group) to use its contingency reserves to balance resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency to within defined limits following a reportable disturbance. Requirement 3 of NERC's BAL-002-0 requires each balancing authority or reserve sharing group to “carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to cover the most severe contingency.” 46. As with all eight regional Reliability Standards, NERC approved WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. 59 With regard to WECC-BAL-STD-002-0, NERC identified various formatting concerns including the need to specify individual Requirements and corresponding Measures, consistent with the format of the NERC Reliability Standards. NERC also stated that WECC's regional Reliability Standard defines the terms “automatic generation control,” “disturbance,” “frequency bias,” and “non-spinning reserve” differently from NERC's Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC glossary). 60 NERC also identifies a number of shortcomings that apply generally to all of the WECC regional Reliability Standards including the sanction tables that conflict with the NERC Sanction Guidelines, failure to include Violation Severity Levels (levels of non-compliance) and Violation Risk Factors, an “excuse of performance” provision 61 that is not included in NERC's Reliability Standards template, and additional substantive and formatting concerns. 59 *See* NERC Filing, Ex. C, Attachment 3 at 5-7. 60 In Order No. 693 at P 1893-98, the Commission approved NERC's glossary and directed certain modifications. 61 Each proposed regional Reliability Standard includes an “excuse of performance” provision stating that “non-compliance with any of the reliability criteria contained in this Standard shall be excused and no sanction applied if such non-compliance results directly from one or more of the [specified] actions or events,” including governmental order, order of reliability coordinator, protection of facilities and extraordinary contingency (such as act of war, insurrection, flood or earthquake). Comments 47. WECC explains that NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 requires an applicable entity to have the ability to supply reserves equal to the most severe single contingency. According to WECC, while applicable users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with BAL-002-0, the corresponding regional Reliability Standard goes further and requires each balancing authority in the West to provide a minimum reserve of five percent of the loads served by hydro generation and seven percent of the loads served by thermal generation. WECC states that this regional minimum reserve requirement was developed to assure that there would be sufficient generation to sustain acceptable power system performance for various contingencies. Further, WECC explains that WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 is more stringent because NERC's BAL-002-0 requires contingency reserves to be restored within 90 minutes following a disturbance while WECC requires restoration within 60 minutes. 48. As noted above, WECC requires balancing authorities to maintain contingency reserves equal to the greater of the loss of generating capacity resulting from the most severe single contingency or the sum of five percent of load responsibility served by hydro generation and seven percent of the load responsibility served by thermal generation. Both Xcel and California Cogeneration protest that the term “load responsibility” as used by the WECC is ambiguous and could lead to inconsistent interpretations of the regional Reliability Standard. California Cogeneration states that Commission Opinion No. 464 determined that a qualifying facility's
(QF)net load is the only relevant load for the purposes of calculating the operating reserve responsibility of the QF. 62 It expresses concern that the term load responsibility could be interpreted to include gross load in conflict with Opinion No. 464 and, thus, asks the Commission to remand the regional Reliability Standard so that it can be modified to include a definition of load responsibility consistent with Opinion No. 464. 62 *Citing California Independent System Operator Corp.,* Opinion No. 464, 104 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 40 (2003). 49. Xcel also argues that the term load responsibility is overly vague. It quotes a WECC document that defines load responsibility as “[a] control area's firm load demand plus those firm sales minus those firm purchases for which reserve capacity is provided by the supplier.” 63 According to Xcel, WECC has not adequately defined the term “firm” embedded in its definition of load responsibility and, likewise, has not adequately defined the related term “interruptible.” 63 Xcel Comments at 12, *citing* NERC/WECC Planning Standards and Minimum Operating Reliability Criteria, Definitions, Revised August 9, 2002. The California Independent System Operator Corporation tariff also uses this definition of load responsibility. *See* Opinion No. 464, 96 FERC ¶ 63,015 at 13. 50. Xcel notes that WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires the purchaser of interruptible power to carry additional reserves to replace interruptible imports. Xcel posits that, while the definition of “interruptible” is unclear, application of a narrow interpretation of the term could have adverse impacts on competition and reliability. Specifically, it claims that to avoid application of the “adder” some entities avoid purchasing “economy power,” or interruptible power, thereby impeding competition. Xcel also claims that this practice may result in entities utilizing local units that are subject to failure or curtailment, resulting in less reliable operations. Xcel further argues that certain entities may try to claim that most “firm” transactions, as interpreted by the Commission in Order No. 890, are potentially curtailable and thus “interruptible” under a “very narrow interpretation.” Xcel adds that there is no evidence to show that “economy transactions” are less reliable thus warranting the need for extra reserves. 51. Xcel also opposes the 60-minute restoration period that would be required under BAL-STD-002-0. Xcel asserts that BAL-STD-002-0 would require restoration of contingency reserves within 60 minutes rather than the 90 minutes permissible under the corresponding NERC standard. According to Xcel, in adopting 60 minutes of restoration time, WECC and NERC disregarded Requirement R6.2 of BAL-002-0 that established a default contingency reserve restoration period of 90 minutes and allows adjustment of this period “to better suit the reliability targets of the Interconnection based on analysis approved by the NERC Operating Committee.” Xcel contends that WECC failed to obtain approval of the NERC Operating Committee. Xcel also claims that WECC's proposed 60-minute restoration period will have a dampening effect on competition because the shortened restoration period will provide little time for market participants to procure alternative resources outside of the host balancing authority. 52. Further, Xcel argues that WECC has not justified the requirements of the regional Reliability Standard and thus the technical expertise of WECC should not be given any weight in the Commission's evaluation of the regional Reliability Standard. Commission Determination 53. The Commission approves regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission finds that the proposed regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, BAL-002-0, because WECC requires a more stringent minimum reserve requirement than the nation-wide requirement. 64 Further, WECC's requirement to restore contingency reserves within 60 minutes is more stringent than the 90 minute restoration period set forth in NERC's BAL-002-0. While we agree with Xcel that NERC's filing did not adequately explain the need for WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 or why it was more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standards, WECC provides an adequate explanation in its comments for the Commission to make a reasoned determination. 65 64 While approving the WECC regional Reliability Standard, the Commission reiterates its directive in Order No. 693 that the ERO develop a continent-wide reserve policy that is “based on the reliability risk of not meeting load associated with a particular balancing authority's generation mix and topology.” See Order No. 693 at P 340. Our approval of WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 does not affect this directive to the ERO. 65 Section 39.5(a) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 39.5(a) (2006), provides that the ERO's submission of a new or modified Reliability Standard must include
(1)A concise statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard,
(2)a summary of the Reliability Standard development proceedings, and
(3)a demonstration that the proposal is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Future Reliability Standard filings may be subject to a deficiency letter if they fail to satisfy the filing requirements set forth in our regulations. 54. The Commission agrees with the shortcomings identified by NERC regarding WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 and expects WECC in developing a permanent, replacement standard to address these shortcomings as it has committed to do. For example, for each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards,
(1)Regional definitions should conform to the definitions set forth in the NERC glossary, unless a specific deviation has been justified; and
(2)documents that are referenced in the Reliability Standard should be attached to the Reliability Standard. Likewise, with respect to this and each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards, we agree with NERC that WECC must remove the sanctions table that is inconsistent with NERC's Sanction Guidelines and develop Violation Risk Factors (levels of non-compliance) and Violation Severity Levels that conform to corresponding NERC standards. In approving NERC's Sanction Guidelines, the Commission emphasized the need to achieve consistency in the assessment of penalties across the regions. Elimination of the WECC sanctions table will further this goal. 66 66 *ERO Certification Order* at P 254, 350. 55. Further, it is important that regional Reliability Standards and NERC Reliability Standards achieve a reasonable level of consistency in the structure of a Reliability Standard so that there is a common understanding of the elements. In particular, we agree with NERC that WECC should eliminate the “excuse of performance” provision of the regional Reliability Standards, which is inconsistent with NERC's format. While the factors identified in the excuse of performance provision may be legitimate mitigating factors for WECC to consider when assessing a penalty on a case-by-case basis, the Commission disagrees that a Reliability Standard should contain a blanket waiver or excuse for non-compliance. 67 We expect WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement standard, to address these concerns of both NERC and the Commission. In general, with respect to both the eight proposed Reliability Standards as well as other standards that are being developed by WECC, it is essential that WECC employ a higher level of precision and consistency. 67 *April 19 Order* at P 133. 56. In Order No. 672, the Commission, in discussing the factors it would consider in determining whether a proposed Reliability Standard met the statutory standard for approval, explained that a proposed Reliability Standard should be clear and unambiguous regarding what is required and who is required to comply. 68 Xcel and California Cogeneration contend that the Commission should remand WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 because of ambiguities in the terms “load responsibility” and “firm transaction.” As discussed above, the Commission believes that the regional Reliability Standard is sound, as it provides greater stringency than NERC's reserve requirements and meets a need of the Western Interconnection. While commenters identify potential ambiguities, we do not believe that these potential uncertainties demonstrate a degree of ambiguity within the regional Reliability Standard that requires us to remand it. 69 Rather, as WECC indicated in its response to stakeholders in the regional Reliability Standards development process, WECC will provide an opportunity to address these concerns when developing a permanent, replacement standard. The Commission agrees that this is a reasonable approach and will expect WECC's submission of a replacement standard to adequately address these stakeholder concerns. 68 Order No. 672 at P 325. 69 The Commission notes that WECC has defined the term load responsibility, although not in its regional Reliability Standard. The definition can be found at WECC's Web site at: *http://wecc.biz/documents/library/procedures/WECC_Reliability_Criteria_definitions_8-02.pdf.* 57. California Cogeneration raised concerns that the term load responsibility must be defined consistent with the Commission's Opinion No. 464, which issued in a proceeding under section 205 of the FPA that addressed treatment of QFs under the CAISO open access transmission tariff. The Commission agrees that a QF's load responsibility should be interpreted consistent with Opinion No. 464, which provided in relevant part that: We affirm the judge's finding that the long-standing practice in the CAISO control area of scheduling, metering and procuring reserves on a net load basis should be permitted to continue, so long as a QF has contracted for standby service with a UDC [Utility Distribution Company], *i.e.* , a contract that provides for the immediate replacement of energy in case of the QF's forced outage. The record indicates * * * that by contract with a QF, a UDC will provide standby service and operating reserves if there is a forced QF outage. 70 70 Opinion No. 464, 104 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 40. 58. Thus, from an economic perspective under section 205, the UDC must pay for the reserves associated with the backup power provided by the UDC by contract. While operating reserves may be required for behind the meter load in a Regional Reliability Standard for reliability reasons, a QF is not required to buy operating reserve for the load that has standby service. It remains the responsibility of the host utility that provides the QF's normal stand-by or back-up power to supply those reserves. We believe this explanation addresses California Cogeneration's concern. 59. In regard to Xcel's concern about the definition of interruptible imports, while it is possible that the term may require refinement by WECC to address specific contexts, the meaning of the term “interruptible” is generally well understood in the industry, *i.e.* , transmission or generation subject to interruption at the provider's discretion. Xcel's claims that the provision, under a narrow interpretation, could have adverse impacts on competition and reliability are highly speculative. 60. The Commission rejects Xcel's protest regarding the 60-minute contingency reserve restoration period. This is useful stringency that benefits reliability in the Western Interconnection by shortening the time after a disturbance that the balancing authority might not have sufficient reserves to meet its reliable obligations in the Interconnection. Xcel's concern that this provision harms competition is speculative. Moreover, the Commission notes that NERC Reliability Standard EOP-001, Requirement R1 requires entities to have pre-existing arrangements. Balancing authorities should not use the reserve restoration period to shop for better prices but to be concerned about restoring the reserves so the Bulk-Power System remains reliable. 61. Finally, while Xcel may be technically correct that the current NERC BAL-002-2 requires approval of the NERC Operating Committee to change the restoration period, we do not believe this is a sufficient reason to remand WECC's proposal. First, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to modify this Requirement to replace “NERC Operating Committee” with “ERO.” 71 NERC board approval of WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 suffices. Second, WECC did not increase but, rather, decreased the restoration period, making the WECC standard include a more stringent requirement than NERC's comparable requirement. 71 Order No. 693 at P 356. 2. WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 (Qualified Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) 62. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 applies to transmission operators, balancing authorities, and load serving entities within the Western Interconnection. Under WECC's plan for congestion management, responsible entities must comply with requests from operators of qualified transmission paths to reduce unscheduled flow on the path. The regional Reliability Standard identifies when an operator shall request curtailments, states that responsible entities shall comply in a timely manner with a request for curtailments, and establishes procedures for reducing flows. In particular, it requires that: Upon receipt of a curtailment request, Contributing Schedules which are subject to curtailments will be reduced (or equivalent alternative schedule adjustments will be effected) in accordance with the following procedures:
(i)Receivers of Contributing Schedules will initiate the requested schedule reductions * * *. [72] 72 WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, Requirement WR1, Plan Attachment 1, Section 9.h. 63. NERC's Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 (Transmission Loading Relief), which the Commission approved in Order No. 693 subject to certain modifications, 73 requires a reliability coordinator experiencing potential or actual System Operating Limit
(SOL)or Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit
(IROL)violations to take appropriate actions pursuant to established procedures to relieve transmission loading. For the Eastern Interconnection, balancing authorities must follow the established transmission loading relief
(TLR)procedures to take appropriate actions pursuant to established procedures to relieve transmission loading. Requirement R2.2 of IRO-006-3 identifies “the equivalent Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure for use in the Western Interconnection is the ‘WSCC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.’ ” 73 Order No. 693 at P 960-64. 64. NERC approved WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 on the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address specified shortcomings concerning formatting, use of standard terms, and the need for greater specificity in the actions that a responsible entity must take. In addition, NERC noted that the requirements should be part of the regional Reliability Standard rather than being embedded in a filing. Comments 65. According to WECC, WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 is essential because it is the only source of a mandatory process for mitigating overloads due to unscheduled line flows in the Western Interconnection. WECC notes that, in developing the regional Reliability Standard, stakeholders commented that the term “receiver” as defined in the standard should more closely match the NERC Functional Model and should not include market entities. WECC states that it intends to address these issues in developing a permanent, replacement standard. 74 74 *See* WECC Comments at 10. 66. PPL protests the applicability of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, noting that NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 applies to reliability coordinators, transmission operators and balancing authorities. PPL contends that WECC has, without explanation, significantly broadened the scope of the regional Reliability Standard by requiring compliance by LSEs. According to PPL, market entities such as LSEs may be unable to meet the requirements of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0. Second, PPL protests that certain requirements apply to “receivers,” which are not identified in the applicability section of the regional Reliability Standard. PPL contends that receivers
(1)May lack the authority or ability to comply with a directive to reduce flows and
(2)may include functional entities beyond LSEs such as “purchasing selling entities” that are not identified in the applicability section of the regional Reliability Standard. 67. PPL recommends that the Commission limit applicability to those entities identified in NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 and clarify that the assessment of penalties is limited to the entities to which the regional Reliability Standard is applicable. PPL asks that, if the Commission decides that it is appropriate to include load-serving entities, the applicability should be limited to LSEs as defined by NERC 75 and to LSEs that meet NERC's compliance registry criteria. 75 PPL at 10. *See* August 2, 2006, NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards at 10, which defines load-serving entity as an entity that “secures energy and transmission service (and related Interconnected Operations Services) to serve the electric demand and energy requirements of its end-use customers.” 68. Xcel protests that no justification has been provided for the WECC regional Reliability Standard. Xcel recognizes that one benefit of the WECC unscheduled flow mitigation procedures is the coordinated use of phase shifters to provide some relief on an overburdened transmission path without the economic impact of schedule curtailments. Xcel suggests that, as an alternative, the WECC procedures could be modeled after the TLR procedures, while retaining this initial step. Commission Determination 69. We approve WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 as mandatory and enforceable for the Western Interconnection. The regional Reliability Standard provides that practices under WECC's Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan—including directions thereunder to reduce flows—are enforceable against all Transmission Operators, Balancing Authorities and Load-Serving Entities in the Western Interconnection. In Order No. 693, we found that the WECC's Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (which relies on phase angle regulators, series capacitors and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate contingencies without curtailing transactions) is superior to the national Reliability Standard. 76 Accordingly, the Commission finds that WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 is adequately justified. In developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard, WECC may consider Xcel's suggestion to model the WECC procedures after the TLR procedures, however, we will not mandate such an approach. 76 *See* Order No. 693 at P 964. 70. The Commission shares PPL's concern that, while the applicability of the regional Reliability Standard identifies LSEs, the requirements refer to receivers. As indicated by PPL, the term “receiver” may refer to LSEs as well as other market participants. While WECC states that WECC-IRO-STD-006 is an exact translation of existing WECC RMS criteria, an entity cannot be subject to a compliance action if it has not been clearly identified in the applicability section of the Reliability Standard. 77 Thus, in approving the regional Reliability Standard, we expect a continuation of the existing practices for transmission line relief in the Western Interconnection. However, an entity that is not clearly identified in the applicability provision of a regional Reliability Standard may not be subject to penalties for non-compliance. Moreover, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA and section 39.5(f) of the Commission's regulations, 78 we direct that WECC in developing a permanent, replacement Reliability Standard, clarify the term “receiver” and the applicability of the standard. 77 *See* Order No. 693 at P 39 (each Reliability Standard must clearly identify the subset of users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to which the Reliability Standard applies). 78 18 CFR 39.5(f) (2006). 71. We also share PPL's concerns regarding the identification of LSEs as applicable entities. While the expansion of the WECC regional Reliability Standard beyond the applicability of the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard is not in itself problematic, we are concerned regarding PPL's contention that LSEs may not be able to meet the Requirements of the regional Reliability Standard. While we are approving WECC-IRO-STD-006 as mandatory and enforceable, we direct WECC to address PPL's concerns in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard. 72. We also expect that WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard, will address the shortcomings identified by NERC. 3. WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 (Certification of Protective Relay Applications and Settings) 73. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 applies to transmission operators or transmission owners of 40 specified transmission paths. 79 The regional Reliability Standard requires these entities to certify to WECC that all
(1)Protective relay applications and
(2)protective relay settings and logic are appropriate for the specified transmission paths. It also requires these entities to certify that “relay operations since the last certification or during the last three-year period have been analyzed for correctness and appropriate corrective action taken. * * *” 79 Some of the specified transmission paths are located completely or partially outside the United States. The Commission addresses the regional Reliability Standard only as it applies to those paths or portions of paths that are within the United States. 74. NERC Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 (System Protection Coordination), which addresses protection systems, requires transmission operators and generator operators to notify appropriate entities of relay or equipment failures and to coordinate when installing new or modified protection systems. 80 80 In Order No. 693, at P 1433-49, the Commission approved NERC Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 and, as a separate action, directed NERC to develop certain modifications to the standard. 75. NERC approved WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC, including several formatting concerns. Comments 76. WECC states that applicable users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with the Requirements of the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard. The WECC regional Reliability Standard requires, in addition, that transmission owners and transmission operators analyze and certify *all* relay settings and operations on specified paths to determine whether operations were correct, and that current information on relays is provided to the transmission operators. WECC explains that these requirements were developed to address root causes of a July 1996 system disturbance in which undesirable relay operations due to incorrect settings and undetected relay problems resulted in cascading outages in the Western Interconnection. 77. Xcel argues that no justification for WECC's certification requirement has been provided. According to Xcel, regional differences are intended to provide reliability protection in situations where physical differences in the Bulk-Power System justify additional stringency. It claims that WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 appears to be driven by a desire for an attestation, not an actual physical difference in the Western Interconnection and that, to the extent the attestation is needed, it is appropriate for the NERC Reliability Standards rather than a regional difference. Xcel further argues that the proposed regional Reliability Standard does not create any additional reliability benefit but, rather, needlessly compounds the requirements of the NERC Reliability Standards. Commission Determination 78. The Commission approves WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission expects WECC, in developing replacement standards, to address the shortcomings identified by NERC. 79. The Commission disagrees with Xcel's contentions that the need for the regional Reliability Standard has not been justified and that it does not create any additional reliability benefits. While the NERC filing did not elaborate on the reliability benefit of WECC-PRC-STD-001-1, WECC explains that it goes beyond the related NERC Reliability Standard by requiring certification that all relay settings and operations on specified transmission paths are appropriate for the Bulk-Power System. The certification requirement provides an additional level of assurance that protection systems will operate as they should to provide for Bulk-Power System reliability. It is appropriate to give due weight to WECC's technical expertise in its representation that the requirements of this regional Reliability Standard will address the problems identified as a root cause of prior cascading outages in the Western Interconnection. 81 81 18 CFR 39.5(c)(2). 80. Further, Xcel incorrectly characterizes the Commission's previous statements regarding when a regional difference may be justified. The Commission has identified two types of regional differences that it will accept, provided they otherwise satisfy the statutory requirements for approval:
(1)A regional difference that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and
(2)a regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. 82 Xcel incorrectly combines the two appropriate types of regional differences as a single standard category where a regional difference sets forth a stringency needed to address a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. Thus, we reject Xcel's argument that WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 should not be approved because it is not based on an actual physical difference in the Western Interconnection. 82 Order No. 672 at P 291. *See also ERO Certification Order,* 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 at P 274. 4. WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 (Protective Relay and Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation) 81. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 has the purpose of ensuring that protection system misoperations are analyzed and mitigated. 83 This regional Reliability Standard applies to the owners and operators of 40 specific transmission paths that are identified in Attachment A of the standard. The regional Reliability Standard requires the removal and repair of protection systems after a misoperation within specified time frames. 83 Protection systems are designed to detect and isolate faulty elements on a system, thereby limiting the severity and spread of system disturbances, and preventing possible damage to protected elements. *See* Order No. 693 at P 1418. Protection systems include protective relays, remedial action schemes (RAS), and special protection schemes. 82. The WECC regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC's Reliability Standard PRC-003-1, which also relates to protective system misoperations. 84 Requirement 1 of NERC's PRC-003-1 provides that each regional reliability organization, *i.e.* , Regional Entity, must establish procedures for review, analysis, reporting and mitigation of protection system misoperations. WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 states that it meets Requirement 1 of NERC Reliability Standard PRC-003-1. 84 In Order No. 693 at P 1460, the Commission explained that, because NERC's PRC-003-1 requires the regions to establish procedures regarding misoperations, and those regional procedures had not been submitted, the Commission neither approved nor remanded the Reliability Standard. 83. As with all eight regional Reliability Standards, NERC approved WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. With regard to WECC-PRC-STD-003-1, NERC noted, *inter alia,* that the WECC definition of “disturbance” is not identical to the NERC glossary definition. It also identified a WECC Measure that refers to the filing of a form for reporting misoperations, without a corresponding requirement. Comments 84. In its comments, WECC explains that the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard PRC-003-1 requires the analysis of misoperations within 90 days and the submission of corrective action plans. WECC states that the applicable users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System in the West must comply with the requirement of NERC's PRC-003-1. In addition, the WECC regional Reliability Standard goes further and requires the applicable entities in the West:
(1)To remove equipment that has misoperated within 22 hours; and
(2)to repair or replace equipment that has misoperated within 20 business days for the specific transmission paths identified in the WECC regional Reliability Standard. WECC explains that these requirements were developed as a result of a 345 kV line relay misoperation in July 1996 when virtually the same outage occurred the next day because the faulty equipment had not been isolated. 85. Xcel points out that, in Order No. 693, the Commission stated that it would neither approve nor remand NERC Reliability Standard PRC-003-1 until NERC submits additional information regarding regional procedures on misoperations. 85 The Commission also directed NERC to consider whether greater consistency can be achieved as NERC modifies PRC-003-1 to provide the missing information. Xcel asserts that Commission approval of WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 would allow WECC to side-step the process directed by the Commission to achieve greater uniformity with regard to NERC's PRC-003-1. 86 Xcel also contends that WECC has not explained the physical differences in the Western Interconnection necessitating the regional difference and, thus, WECC's technical expertise should be given no weight in evaluating the WECC regional Reliability Standard. 85 *Id* . at P 1460-61. 86 *Id.* Commission Determination 86. The Commission approves WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission agrees with WECC that the proposed regional Reliability Standard goes beyond the corresponding NERC standards because no current NERC Reliability Standard includes the equipment removal and repair requirements set forth in this regional Reliability Standard. Moreover, while we agree with Xcel that NERC's filing did not adequately explain the need for WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 or why it is more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standards, WECC has provided an adequate explanation in its comments, as discussed above. 87. We note that upon failure of protective relays, NERC Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 requires transmission operators and generator operators to take corrective actions as soon as possible (within thirty minutes as directed by Order No. 693). 87 Order No. 693 clarifies that “corrective actions” do not refer to the repair of protective relays, but instead to actions that ensure the reliability of the system, such as lowering IROLs and SOLs. The proposed regional Reliability Standard does not relieve compliance with this requirement but, rather, adds more stringency by defining a maximum timeframe for removal and repair of protective equipment. 87 *See* Order No. 693 at P 1443-49. 88. The Commission disagrees with Xcel's assertion that approval of WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 would sidestep the Commission's directive that NERC consider whether greater consistency can be achieved as NERC modifies PRC-003-1. Approval of the WECC regional Reliability Standard does not preclude the development of an appropriate level of uniformity on a nationwide basis. The Commission expects that all of the regions, including WECC, will work together to develop greater uniformity with regard to reporting procedures for misoperation of relays and remedial action schemes. 89. The Commission agrees with the shortcomings identified by NERC regarding WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 and expects WECC in developing a permanent, replacement standard to address these shortcomings as it has committed to do. In particular, we believe that regional definitions should conform to the definitions set forth in the NERC glossary unless a specific deviation has been justified. Likewise, each Requirement should have a corresponding Measure and, in this case, *vice versa* . 5. WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 (Transmission Maintenance) 90. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires each transmission owner and transmission operator of specified transmission paths to perform maintenance and inspection on those paths as described by its Transmission Maintenance and Inspection Plan (TMIP). The regional Reliability Standard identifies specific contents that each applicable transmission owner and transmission operator must include in its TMIP. For example, a TMIP must include the scheduled interval for time-based maintenance, describe maintenance and inspection methods, provide relevant checklists or forms and provide criteria for assessing the condition of a facility. Each applicable entity must retain all pertinent maintenance and inspection records for at least five years. Further, each applicable entity must annually certify to WECC staff that it has developed, documented and implemented a TMIP. 91. WECC's regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 (Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing), which requires transmission owners, generator owners and distribution providers that own transmission protection systems to have a protection system maintenance and testing program for protection systems that affect the reliability of the bulk electric system. 92. NERC approved WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address identified shortcomings. With regard to WECC-PRC-STD-005-1, NERC identified various formatting concerns including the need to specify individual requirements instead of one formal requirement with multiple subparts (including statements and comments that do not read as requirements). Comments 93. WECC states that the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, PRC-005-1, requires a maintenance and inspection plan limited to relays, monitoring equipment, and special protection systems. WECC explains that relevant users, owners and operators must comply with the requirements of the NERC Reliability Standard. According to WECC, the proposed regional Reliability Standard goes further by requiring, for specified transmission paths, a highly detailed TMIP for all transmission and substation equipment components, including circuit breakers, relays, transformers, reactive devices, and transmission lines. It also requires applicable entities to maintain five years of maintenance records to verify compliance. 94. Xcel argues that WECC has failed to justify the need for this regional Reliability Standard based on physical differences in the bulk power system. Commission Determination 95. The Commission approves regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. As explained by WECC, the applicable users, owner and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with NERC's PRC-003-1 and, in addition, the regional Reliability Standard. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the regional Reliability Standard satisfies the statutory standard for approval because it is more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard by requiring, for specified transmission paths, a highly detailed maintenance and inspection plan for *all* transmission and substation equipment components. WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 imposes requirements well beyond the NERC Reliability Standards and improves reliability because disciplined maintenance on equipment such as transmission lines, circuit breakers, power transformers and regulators will help prevent failures during operation. 96. Moreover, WECC in its comments provided a persuasive need for the regional Reliability Standard as well as a demonstration that the regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the corresponding NERC standard. Thus, we reject Xcel's protest on this issue. 97. Requirement WR1.b(i)(a)(2) of the regional Reliability Standard requires the TMIP to describe the maintenance practices for station equipment including remedial action scheme
(RAS)systems, which are also referred to as “special protection systems.” 88 This regional Requirement corresponds more closely to NERC Reliability Standard PRC-017-0 (Special Protection System Maintenance and Testing). It appears that the NERC Reliability Standard includes slightly more specificity in that it requires a special protection system maintenance program to include, among other things, batteries and instrument transformers, which are not specified in WECC-PRC-STD-005-1. Because WECC's regional Reliability Standards are *in addition* to the NERC Reliability Standards, we would expect the maintenance plans of applicable entities in the West to include these details identified in NERC Reliability Standard PRC-017-0. 88 *See* NERC glossary at 16 (defining both terms as “an automatic protection system to detect abnormal or predetermined system conditions, and take corrective actions * * *”). 98. The Commission agrees with NERC's concerns regarding the format and content of WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 and expects WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement standard, to address these concerns, including but not limited to inclusion of all relevant documents. 6. WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 (Operating Transfer Capability) 99. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 applies to transmission operators of 40 specified transmission paths. The goal of this regional Reliability Standard is to ensure that the operating transfer capability limits requirements of the Western Interconnection are not exceeded. 89 It includes a Measure that provides “actual power flow on all transmission paths shall at no time exceed the [operating transfer capability] for more than 20 minutes for paths that are stability limited, or for more than 30 minutes for paths that are thermally limited.” 89 Requirement WR1 of WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 defines “capability limits requirements” as the maximum amount of actual power that can be transferred over direct or parallel transmission elements comprising: An interconnection from one transmission operator area to another, or a transmission path within a transmission operator area. 100. The corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, TOP-007-0, requires that violations of SOL and IROL be promptly reported to the reliability coordinator so that it can direct corrective action and inform other affected systems. It also requires a transmission operator to mitigate an IROL violation as soon as possible but no longer than 30 minutes. In Order No. 693, the Commission approved TOP-007-0 as mandatory and enforceable. 90 90 Order No. 693 at P 1674. 101. NERC approved WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address identified shortcomings, including formatting concerns and inconsistency between the NERC and WECC definition of the term “disturbance.” Comments 102. WECC comments that NERC Reliability Standard TOP-007-0 requires transmission operators to return the system to within IROL limits for each incident in which an IROL is exceeded. While transmission operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with the NERC requirement, WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 “goes further in limiting the time period of an Operational Transfer Capability (which is more conservative than an IROL) exceedance to no more than 20 minutes when the limit is based on potential voltage or transient stability.” 91 WECC explains that the 20-minute limit was developed after two major disturbances in 1996 that caused the system to break up rapidly. WECC also states that the regional Reliability Standard applies to 40 clearly defined transmission paths, many of which would not be defined by NERC as having IROL requirements. 91 WECC Comments at 12. 103. Xcel protests that no technical justification has been provided for WECC-TOP-STD-007-0. Commission Determination 104. The Commission approves WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. WECC has provided an adequate explanation of the need for this regional Reliability Standard and also adequately explained how the Requirements are more stringent than the Requirements of the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard. In particular, the imposition of a 20-minute limit is more restrictive than NERC's TOP-007-0 and is a prudent means of limiting the risk of blackouts, consistent with sound engineering principles. Thus, we disagree with Xcel that WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 has not been adequately justified. 105. The Commission is concerned regarding a possible inconsistency within WECC-TOP-STD-007-0. As background, NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-1 (Reliability Coordination—Current Day Operations) provides, *inter alia,* that “if a potential or actual IROL violation cannot be avoided through proactive intervention, the Reliability Coordinator shall initiate control actions or emergency procedures to relieve the violation without delay, and no longer than 30 minutes.” In Order No. 693, the Commission expressed concern that IRO-005-1 could be interpreted as allowing a system operator to respect IROLs in one of two ways:
(1)Allowing IROL to be exceeded during normal operations, *i.e.* , prior to a contingency, provided that corrective actions are taken within 30 minutes; or
(2)allowing IROL to be exceeded only after a contingency and subsequently returning the system to a secure condition as soon as possible, but no longer than 30 minutes. 92 The Commission explained that the system could be one contingency away from potential cascading failure if operated under the first interpretation and two contingencies away from cascading failure under the second interpretation. The Commission directed NERC to conduct a survey on IROL practices and actual operating experiences of managing within IROL. The survey results will provide guidance on the frequency, duration and magnitude of IROL violations and whether these IROL violations occur during normal or contingency conditions. 92 *See* Order No. 693 at P 945-51 and n.303. 106. With regard to WECC-TOP-STD-007-0, Requirement WR1.b. provides that “[t]he interconnected power system shall remain stable upon loss of any one single element without system cascading that could result in the successive loss of additional elements.” This Requirement suggests that WECC expects that IROLs will be addressed in such a manner that the system is two contingencies away from a cascading failure, which is consistent with the more conservative interpretation of the NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-1. 93 93 In addition to requiring the system to be operated to withstand the loss of a single element, WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 requires operators to take into consideration single events that might cause the loss of multiple elements. *See* NERC Filing, WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 § B(b). In Order No. 693, we addressed element- versus event-based contingencies. *See* Order No. 693 at P 1604, 1715-1719. 107. However, Measure WM1 of WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 may not be consistent with Requirement WR1.b since it states “[a]ctual power flow on all transmission paths shall at no time exceed the OTC for more than 20 minutes for paths that are stability limited, or more than 30 minutes for paths that are thermally limited.” This Measure is more consistent with the first interpretation of NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-1. Simply put, it could be interpreted that WECC Requirement WR1.b results in the power system being operated two contingencies away from a cascading outage while WECC Measure WM1 results in the power system being operated one contingency away from a cascading outage. 108. Thus, it is possible to understand the WECC Measure as less stringent than NERC's IRO-005-1, if the latter is interpreted conservatively. While the Commission has stated that a Requirement of a Reliability Standard sets forth the obligations of the applicable users, owners and operators, 94 the Commission is concerned regarding the circumstances under which WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 would be implemented and the amount of time an entity is allowed to be in violation of an IROL without the possibility of being found in non-compliance. Accordingly, the Commission directs NERC to submit a filing within 30 days of the date of this order explaining whether Requirement WR1.b is consistent with the second interpretation of IRO-005-1 (two contingencies away from cascading failure). 95 94 *Id.* at P 1929. 95 If WECC construes Requirement WR1.b as consistent with the first interpretation of IRO-005-1, we will consider whether modifications are necessary to protect the reliability of the Bulk Power System upon consideration of the survey results noted above. 109. Moreover, Measure WM1 of WECC-TOP-STD-007-0, which sets forth the 20 and 30 minutes time limits for exceeding operating transfer capability, states responsibilities of applicable entities and, thus, is more appropriately a requirement than a Measure. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA and section 39.5(f) of the Commission's regulations, we direct that WECC in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard:
(1)Clarify any inconsistency between the Requirement WR1.b and corresponding Measure WM1; and
(2)ensure that the requirements currently set forth in Measures WM1 are set forth in the Requirements and that corresponding Measures simply quantify the frequency, duration and magnitude of the violations as determined by the Requirements. 110. In addition, we expect that WECC will address the shortcomings identified by NERC in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard. 7. *WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 (Automatic Voltage Regulators)* 111. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 applies to generator operators of synchronous generating units equipped with Automatic Voltage Regulators in the Western Interconnection. 96 The stated purpose of the regional Reliability Standard is to ensure that automatic voltage control equipment on synchronous generators shall be kept in service at all times, except in specified circumstances, and that outages of such equipment must be coordinated. It requires that generator operators must normally operate automatic voltage control equipment in voltage control mode and set to respond effectively to voltage deviations. 96 An “automatic voltage regulator” is a device that continuously monitors the generator terminal voltage and changes the reactive power output as required to maintain (or regulate) the voltage within a pre-determined voltage range. For example, if a load increase causes a decline in system voltages and thereby the terminal voltage of a generator, the automatic voltage regulator will increase the generator's reactive output to raise the terminal voltage. 112. Related NERC Reliability Standard VAR-002-1 (Generator Operation for Maintaining Network Voltage Schedules) requires generator operators to operate each generator connected to the interconnected transmission grid in the automatic voltage control mode unless the generator operator has notified the transmission operator. 97 Unless exempted by the transmission operator, the generator operator must maintain voltage or reactive power output as directed by the transmission operator. 97 In Order No. 693 at P 1884, the Commission approved VAR-002-1. 113. NERC approved WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address identified format-related shortcomings. Comments 114. WECC comments that, in addition to compliance with the related NERC Reliability Standard, the WECC regional Reliability Standard requires automatic voltage regulators to be in service and in voltage control mode with very limited exceptions. WECC explains that it instituted this requirement after a 1996 disturbance, which was caused by insufficient supply of reactive power from generators, including automatic voltage regulators that were not operating in voltage control mode. As a result of this experience, WECC determined that there should be only very limited circumstances where a generator should remove its unit from AVR operation. 115. Xcel asserts that WECC has not provided any technical justification for the regional Reliability Standard. Commission Determination 116. The Commission approves Reliability Standard WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission agrees with WECC that this regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the related NERC Reliability Standard. WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 requires all synchronous generators to have their voltage regulator in service at all times with only exceptions for specified circumstances. The related NERC Reliability Standard, VAR-002-1, permits a generator to remove its automatic voltage regulator from service for additional reasons. The regional standard is appropriate to avoid the root causes of prior disturbances in the Western Interconnection. We reject Xcel's protest as WECC has adequately justified the need for this regional Reliability Standard. 117. As with the other regional Reliability Standards, we expect that WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement standard, will address the shortcomings identified by NERC regarding WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1. 8. *WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 (Power System Stabilizers)* 118. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 applies to generator operators with generators equipped with power system stabilizers. A power system stabilizer is part of the excitation control system of a generator used to increase power transfer levels by improving power system dynamic performance. It requires that power system stabilizers on generators must be kept in service at all times, except in specified circumstances, and that the power system stabilizers must be “properly tuned” in accordance with WECC requirements. This standard does not have a corresponding NERC Reliability Standard. 119. NERC approved WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 and identified several format-related shortcomings for WECC to address. Comments 120. WECC states that WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 requires generator operators to always have power system stabilizers in service with very limited exceptions. It explains that this requirement was developed after the August 1996 disturbance in the Western Interconnection in which oscillations that could possibly have been attenuated by power system stabilizers were a factor. 121. Xcel states the proposed standard is deficient because it does not define “power system stabilizers” and because WECC has not provided a technical justification for the standard. Commission Determination 122. The Commission approves WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The regional Reliability Standard is justified as it addresses matters that are not addressed by a NERC Reliability Standard. Moreover, WECC explains that the regional Reliability Standard is justified as a means to avoid oscillations that contributed to previous disturbances in the Western Interconnection. 123. We reject Xcel's protest since the term “power system stabilizer” is generally understood as described above, and Xcel has not provided any explanation why the regional Reliability Standard is deficient without a formal definition. Finally, as with the other regional standards, we expect WECC to address the shortcomings identified by NERC when developing a permanent, replacement standard. D. Effective Date 124. As requested by NERC and WECC, the proposed regional Reliability Standards shall take effect on June 18, 2007 to coincide with the effective date of the Reliability Standards that were approved in Order No. 693. E. Information Collection Statement 125. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. 98 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 an agency rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)99 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons, or continuing a collection for which OMB approval and validity of the control number are about to expire. 100 98 5 CFR 1320.8 (2005). 99 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 100 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i), 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3). 126. This order approves eight regional Reliability Standards that were submitted by NERC as the ERO. Section 215 of the FPA authorizes the ERO to submit Reliability Standards to provide for the Reliable Operation of the Bulk-Power System. Pursuant to the statute, the ERO must submit each Reliability Standard that it proposes to be made effective to the Commission for approval. 101 101 *See* 16 U.S.C. 824(d). 127. The eight proposed Reliability Standards do not require responsible entities to file information with the Commission. However, the standards do require responsible entities to file periodic reports with WECC and to develop and maintain certain information for a specified period of time, subject to inspection by WECC. WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups to submit to WECC quarterly reports on operating reserves as well as reports after any instance of non-compliance. WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 requires transmission operators, balancing authorities and load-serving entities to document and report to WECC actions taken in response to direction to mitigate unscheduled flow. The standard also requires transmission operators to document required actions that are and are not taken by responsible entities. WECC-PRC-STD-001 requires certain transmission operators to submit to WECC annual certifications of protective equipment. WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 requires certain transmission operators to report to WECC any misoperation of relays and remedial action schemes. WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires certain transmission operators to maintain, in stated form, maintenance and inspection records pertaining to their transmission facilities. The standard also requires operators to certify to WECC that the operator is maintaining the required records. WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 requires certain transmission operators to submit to WECC quarterly reports on transfer capability data and compliance as well as reports after an instance of non-compliance. WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 and WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 require certain generators to submit quarterly reports to WECC on automatic voltage control and power system stabilizers. All of the foregoing regional Reliability Standards require the reporting entity to retain relevant data in electronic form for one year or for a longer period if the data is relevant to a dispute or potential penalty, except that WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires retention of maintenance and inspection records for five years and retention of other data for four years. 128. We do not believe our approval of the WECC Regional Reliability Standards will result in a significant increase in reporting burdens as compared to current practices in WECC. As NERC and WECC explain, the eight Regional Reliability Standards are translations of existing WECC criteria pursuant to its RMS program. The eight proposed standards:
(1)Reflect practices that are currently in place on a contractual or voluntary basis;
(2)represent discrete differences from nation-wide, mandatory Reliability Standards that will take effect on June 18, 2007; and
(3)will be replaced by permanent standards developed by WECC. Moreover, with only limited exceptions, the reporting requirements in the regional Reliability Standards apply to large entities that have been complying with those standards for several years. The only possible exception is WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, which requires applicable entities to comply with transmission operators' directions to reduce unscheduled flows. Our approval of this regional Reliability Standard might result in reporting requirements for load-serving entities that did not previously comply with WECC practices in this regard. We do not believe that the associated reporting requirement is significant. Under WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, applicable entities must document and report to WECC actions that those entities take in response to direction to reduce unscheduled flow. We do not expect that the number of occurrences or nature of the documentation will result in significant reporting burdens. 129. The Commission is submitting these reporting 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. 130. Our Estimates below are based on the total reporting burdens that arise under the approved standards, including reporting burdens that were already in place under WECC practices. Thus, the Estimates exceed the incremental burdens that result from our approval of the standards. The Estimates are based on the NERC compliance registry as of April 2007. For the Western Interconnection that is overseen by WECC, NERC and WECC have identified approximately 30 balancing authorities, 146 generator operators, 104 load-serving entities, 41 transmission operators, and 66 transmission owners * * * While NERC has registered 104 load-serving entities in the U.S. portion of WECC, we believe that only 50 load-serving entities will be affected by the reporting requirements that apply to load-serving entities (under WECC-IRO-STD-006-0) because those requirements apply only in relation to “qualified transfer paths” and because the number of such paths are limited. Similarly, although NERC has registered 41 transmission operators and 66 transmission owners in the U.S. portion of WECC, we believe only the 14 transmission operators and owners that operate 40 designated paths will be affected by reporting requirements under this order. We note that some transmission operators operate up to seven paths. This has been taken into account in our estimate in the line “Transmission Operators/Owners” in the table below. 131. NERC's compliance registry indicates that there is a significant amount of overlap among the entities that perform these functions. In some instances, a single entity may be registered under all four of these functions. Thus, the Commission estimates that the total number of entities required to comply with the information “reporting” or development requirements of the proposed Reliability Standards is approximately 180-200 entities. *Burden Estimate:* The Public Reporting burden for the requirements in the present order is as follows: Data collection Number of respondents Number of responses Hours per response Total annual hours FERC-XXX: Balancing Authorities 30 1 20 600 Generator Operators 146 1 10 1460 Load-Serving Entities 50 1 10 500 Transmission Operators/Owners 14 1-7 each (total of 40) 40 1600 Recordkeeping: Balancing Authorities 60 60 Generator Operators 146 146 Load-Serving Entities 50 50 Transmission Operators/Owners 160 160 Totals 416 (FTE = Full Time Equivalent or 2,080 hours) Total Annual Hours for Collection: 4,160 reporting + 416 recordkeeping = *4,576* hours. *Information Collection Costs:* The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average annualized cost to be $515,840 as shown below: Reporting = 4,160 hours @ $120/hour = $499,200. Recordkeeping = 416 hours @ $40/hour = $16,640. Total Costs = Reporting ($499,200) + Recordkeeping ($16,640) = $515,840. *Title:* FERC-725E Regional Reliability Standards (WECC). *Action:* Proposed Collection of Information. *OMB Control No.:* To be determined. *Respondents:* Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit institutions. *Frequency of Responses:* Periodic and intermittent. *Necessity of the Information:* The eight Reliability Standards would implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. *Internal Review:* The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System and determined the proposed requirements are necessary to meet the statutory provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 132. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone:
(202)502-8415, fax:
(202)273-0873, e-mail: *michael.miller@ferc.gov]* . 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, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], e-mail: *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov* . F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 133. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)102 generally requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated above, based on available information regarding NERC's compliance registry, approximately 180-200 entities will be responsible for compliance with the eight regional Reliability Standards. Most of those entities, *i.e.* , balancing authorities, generator operators, transmission owners and operators, do not fall within the definition of small entities. 103 About one-fifth of the approximately 50 load-serving entities that are subject to the approved standards might qualify as small entities. 102 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 103 The RFA definition of “small entity” refers to the definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a “small business concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 632 (2000). According to the SBA, a small electric utility is defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four million MWh in the preceding year. 134. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that the approved standards will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. The Commission orders:
(A)The proposed regional Reliability Standards are hereby approved, as discussed in the body of this order.
(B)NERC is directed to submit a compliance filing within 30 days of this order, as discussed in the body of this order.
(C)WECC is directed to develop, for each of its regional Reliability Standards, sanctions that follow NERC guidelines as discussed in the body of this order.
(D)WECC is directed to develop modifications to regional Reliability Standards WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 and WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 through its Reliability Standards development process when developing permanent, replacement standards. By the Commission. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11685 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP06-89-002] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing June 11, 2007. Take notice that on June 1, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective August 1, 2007: Tenth Revised Sheet No. 1 13 Revised Sheet No. 2 75 Revised Sheet No. 53 Original Sheet No. 165 Original Sheet No. 166 Original Sheet No. 167 Sheet No. 168 First Revised Fifth Revised Sheet No. 403 First Revised Fifth Revised Sheet No. 403A Second Revised Sheet No. 461 First Revised Sheet No. 462 Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to comply with Commission requirements issued in its April 10, 2007 order in Docket Nos. CP06-89 et al. related to the abandonment by sale of the West Hugoton facilities. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Protest Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11646 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. QF85-93-005; EL07-64-000] Ripon Cogeneration LLC; Notice of Filing June 8, 2007. Take notice that on May 23, 2007, Ripon Cogeneration LLC filed a request for temporary waiver of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's operating and efficiency standards for a topping-cycle qualifying cogeneration facility for calendar years 2006 and 2007, pursuant to 18 CFR 292.205(c) and 292.205(a). Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 18, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11654 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-477-000] Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice Annual Report June 8, 2007. Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) tendered for filing its annual report of the incidental operational gas purchase/sale transactions for the previous calendar year as required by Section 13.7 of the General Terms and conditions of its tariff. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail F *ERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time June 15, 2007. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11651 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-481-000] Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff June 11, 2007. Take notice that on June 6, 2007, Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C. (Saltville) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix B to the filing, to become effective July 7, 2007. Saltville states that the purpose of this filing is to make miscellaneous clean-up changes to various sections of the Saltville Tariff. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail F *ERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11645 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP07-482-000] Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing June 11, 2007. Take notice that on June 7, 2007, Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective July 9, 2007. Tuscarora states that this tariff sheet is being submitted to add tariff language that will clarify the pipeline's ability to offer firm transportation service with differing Maximum Transportation Quantity levels throughout a shipper's contract term. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11643 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 6, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC07-39-001. *Applicants:* Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. *Description:* Goldman Sachs Group, Inc's response to FERC Staff's deficiency letter issued on 2/26/07. *Filed Date:* 05/14/2007 & 05/15/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070514-5146 & 20070521-0579. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER91-569-037. *Applicants:* EWO Marketing, LP. *Description:* EWO Marketing, LP submits a revised FERC Electric Tariff 3 in conformance with Order 614 pursuant to the April 25, 2007 order. *Filed Date:* 05/24/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0203. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-2495-029; ER97-4143-017; ER97-1238-024; ER98-2075-023; ER98-542-019. *Applicants:* AEP Power Marketing Inc; AEP Service Corporation; AEP Energy Partners, LP; CSW Energy Services, Inc.; Central and South West Services, Inc. *Description:* AEP Power Marketing, Inc et al submit a notice of Change in Status in connection with their authority to make sales at negotiated market-based rates. *Filed Date:* 05/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070531-0125. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER99-3426-007. *Applicants:* San Diego Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits a notice of change in status in connection with a net increase in its generation capacity pursuant to section 35.27(c) of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070531-0086. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER00-1049-008; ER02-506-008; ER98-2783-011; ER99-3822-011; ER07-841-001; ER01-140-007; ER07-842-001; ER00-1895-009; ER07-843-001; ER07-844-001; ER07-845-001; ER07-846-001; ER99-4160-012; ER01-141-007; ER07-847-001; ER00-3696-008; ER01-943-007; ER05-1266-005; ER01-3109-009; ER01-1044-008; ER99-2157-008; ER02-553-007; ER02-2202-011; ER03-42-012. *Applicants:* Bridgeport Energy, LLC; Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C.; Calcasieu Power, LLC; Casco Bay Energy Company, LLC; Dynegy Arlington Valley, LLC; Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C.; Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC; Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.; Dynegy Mohave, LLC; Dynegy Morro Bay, LLC; Dynegy Moss Landing, LLC; Dynegy Oakland, LLC; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C.; Dynegy South Bay, LLC; Griffith Energy LLC; Heard County Power, L.L.C.; Ontelaunee Power Operating Company, LLC; Renaissance Power, L.L.C.; Riverside Generating, L.L.C.; Rocky Road Power, LLC; Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.; Sithe Energy Marketing, L.P.; sithe/Independence Power Partners. *Description:* Bluegrass Generation Co, LLC's et al CD containing the Workpapers of Julie R Soloman to its Notice of non-material change in status, request to synchronize Triennial Market Power Analysis due dates etc under ER02-506 et al. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070531-4019. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-1263-008; ER03-160-007; ER02-900-007; ER02-537-008; ER02-1052-007; ER96-1947-021. *Applicants:* Mirant Las Vegas, LLC; Mirant Sugar Creek, LLC; Mirant Zeeland, L.L.C. *Description:* Mirant Las Vegas Power Company, LLC et al informs FERC of certain changes in status with respect to the characteristics upon which the Commission previously relied in granting market-based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0204. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER04-734-002. *Applicants:* Barclays Bank PLC. *Description:* Barclays Bank PLC submits its Triennial Updated Market Power Analysis. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0192. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-451-021; ER06-1467-003. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an errata to its 4/2/07 compliance filing. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. Accession Number: 20070604-0159. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1367-003; ER07-239-002; ER99-1714-006; ER06-745-002. *Applicants:* BG Dighton Power, LLC; BG Energy Merchants, LLC; Lake Road Generating Company, L.P.; MASSPOWER. *Description:* BG Dighton Power LLC et al submits a notification of change in status to inform FERC of a non-material departure from the characteristics and on 5/31/07 submits a correction to this filing. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007; 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0094; 20070601-0095. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-153-002. *Applicants:* Ameren Services Company. *Description:* Ameren Services Company on behalf of Central Illinois Light Company dba AmerenCILCO et al submits revisions to the Ameren Illinois Operating Companies' Ancillary Services Tariff, effective 1/1/07. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0104. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-445-002. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. *Description:* Duke Energy Corporation submits the Interim Agreement as a supplemental response to the data request from Commission Staff. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-502-001. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* Refund Report of PacifiCorp submits a Refund Report pursuant to Commission's order issued March 30, 2007. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070530-5036. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-641-001. *Applicants:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc. *Description:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits substitute sheets that designates their rate schedule for reactive power service from the Goldendale Facility as Rate Schedule 425. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0214. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-717-001. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services Inc submits an Amendment to its 4/5/07 notice of adoption of revised North American Electric Reliability Council's Transmission Loading Relief Procedures. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0100. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-764-001. *Applicants:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. *Description:* Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits a compliance filing correcting the designation of its rate schedule in accordance with Order No. 614. *Filed Date:* 05/14/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070514-5084. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 14, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-829-001. *Applicants:* MidAmerican Energy Company. *Description:* MidAmerican Energy Company submits the corrected Confirmation Letter and requests that it replace the Confirmation Letter dated 4/27/07. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0099. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-953-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a newly executed Generator Special Facilities Agreement in accordance with section 205(d) of the FPA. *Filed Date:* 05/25/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070531-0170. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-955-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co. submits an explanatory Statement to its Settlement Agreement w/Los Angeles Department of Water & Power and on 6/1/06 submits an errata to this filing. *Filed Date:* 05/29/2007; 06/01/07. *Accession Number:* 20070531-0171. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 19, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-956-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Operating Companies submits rates to implement the decision of the Commission as contained in Opinion 480 and 480-A and the 5/25/07 Order. *Filed Date:* 05/29/2007. Accession Number: 20070531-0240. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 19, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-957-000. *Applicants:* Southern Power Company. *Description:* Southern Power Co submits a application seeking authorization to make market-based rate wholesale power sales to its affiliate Gulf Power Co. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-959-000. *Applicants:* Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc submits a notice of cancellation of its Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0083. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-960-000. *Applicants:* Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc submits an executed Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement with Tower Kleber Limited Partnership. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0082. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-961-000. *Applicants:* MASSPOWER. *Description:* MASSPOWER submits an amendment to its market-based rate schedule, FERC Electric Tariff 1, pursuant to Order 671. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0081. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-962-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits Service Agreement 192 to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 with the City of Wathena, Kansas. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0080. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-963-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits Service Agreement 193 under its FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 with the City of Iola, Kansas. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0079. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-964-000. *Applicants:* UNS Electric, Inc. *Description:* UNS Electric Inc submits a Market-Based Rate Tariff for the sale of electric energy and capacity etc. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0078. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-965-000. *Applicants:* EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC. *Description:* EnergyCo LLC submits a Market Based Rate Tariff for sale of electric energy, capacity, ancillary services, and firm transmission rights, etc. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0077. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-966-000. *Applicants:* Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC. *Description:* Allegheny Energy Supply Co submits a petition requesting authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate, The Potomac Edison Co. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-967-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits an unexecuted amended Owners Coordinated Operation Agreement among itself and Southern California Edison Company et al. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0122. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-968-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a Certificate of Concurrence to its 5/31/07 filing of an amendment to the 12/1/95 Interconnection Agreement with PacifiCorp designated as Rate Schedule 195. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0121. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-969-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company on behalf of Southern California Edison Company et al. submits a notice of cancellation of FERC Rate Schedule 38 et al. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0120. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-970-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with American Transmission Company, LLC et al. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0076. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-971-000. *Applicants:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc. *Description:* Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits a Generator Imbalance Service Agreement with Pacific Industries, Inc pursuant to 18 CFR Part 35 and section 205 of the Federal Power Act etc. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0075. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-972-000. *Applicants:* New England Power Pool Participants Committee. *Description:* New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits this transmittal letter along with counterpart signature pages dated as of September 1, 1971. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-0074. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-973-000. *Applicants:* PacifiCorp. *Description:* PacifiCorp submits an Amendment to the 12/1/95 Interconnection Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, U.S.C. 824d and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0206. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-974-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits a fully-executed Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement with the City of Norway, Michigan pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Commission's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0208. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-975-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits its proposed amendments to its Metering Service Agreement with Wisconsin Public Power Inc pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act etc. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0209. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-976-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits a Notice of Cancellation of the Amended and Restated Edison-PG&E Transmission Agreement (Rate Schedule 256). *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0207. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-977-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Compan. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits the Banning Substation Third Line Wholesale Distribution Load Interconnection Facilities Agreement with the City of Banning, CA. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0210. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-978-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Company submits the Amended and Restated Midway Interconnection Agreement w/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company pursuant to Section 35.13 of FERC's Regulations etc. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0211. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-979-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits the Second Revised Sheet 1 and First revised Sheet 4 to their First Revised Rate Schedule 234. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0213. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-980-000. *Applicants:* Xcel Energy Operating Companies. *Description:* Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf of Southwestern Public Service Co submits copies of a Connection Agreement with Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc pursuant to Part 35 of FERC's Rules and Regulations. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0212. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-981-000. *Applicants:* Barclays Capital Energy Inc. *Description:* Barclays Capital Energy Inc submits an application for order accepting Initial Rate Schedule, waiving regulations, and granting blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0190. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m.Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-982-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* American Electric Power Services Corporation designated agent for AEP Operating Companies submits and requests acceptance of Second Revised Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1427 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0189. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-983-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy Inc submits Service Agreement 194 under its FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6, Wholesale Electric Energy and Capacity Agreement with the City of Scranton, Kansas. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0187. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-984-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Gulf States, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Gulf States Inc submits an executed version of an amended and conformed Power Sales Agreement for the Toledo Bend Project with Sabine River Authority et al. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0188. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-985-000. *Applicants:* Entergy Services, Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services Inc on behalf of Entergy Operating Companies submits an amendment to the Entergy System Agreement under ER07-985. *Filed Date:* 05/30/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0186. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-986-000. *Applicants:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Company. *Description:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Co submits proposed revisions to its local service schedule set forth as Schedule 21-BHE in the ISO New England Inc Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0185. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-987-000. *Applicants:* K Road BG Management LLC. *Description:* K Road BG Management, LLC submits Notice of Cancellation of their market based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff 1, effective 6/1/07. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0184. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-989-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service with Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority under ER07-989. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0201. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-990-000. *Applicants:* American Transmission Company LLC. *Description:* American Transmission Company, LLC submits an executed Distribution Interconnection Agreement with Kiel Electric Utility dated as of 5/16/07 pursuant to Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0182. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-991-000. *Applicants:* American Transmission Company LLC. *Description:* American Transmission Co, LLC submits an executed Distribution-Transmission Interconnection Agreement with Sauk City Utilities dated as of 5/16/07. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0202. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-992-000. *Applicants:* Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. *Description:* Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc submits its Seventh Informational Filing setting forth updated fixed costs associated with rates charged for sales of replacement energy pursuant to Rate Schedule 35 etc. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0181. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-993-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits an Amended and Restated Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Forward Energy, LLC et al. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0203. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-994-000. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule 148, the Transmission Service Exchange Agreement with the City of Vernon. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-0107. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings: *Docket Numbers:* RR07-9-001; RR07-10-001. *Applicants:* North American Electric Reliability Corp. *Description:* Compliance Filing of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation in Response to Paragraphs 42, 44 and 45 of May 18, 2007 Order—Submission of Revised Violation Risk Factors for Approved Reliability Standards. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-5055. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 2, 2007. 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 *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11642 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 8, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings: *Docket Numbers:* EC07-101-000. *Applicants:* AES Central Valley, L.L.C.; AES Delano, Inc.; Covanta Holding Corporation. *Description:* AES Central Valley, LLC, AES Delano, Inc and Covanta Holdings Corp submit for approval of a transaction wherein Covanta Holding will acquire from Central Valley six wholly owned direct & indirect subsidiaries etc. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0194. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* EC07-102-000. *Applicants:* Blue Canyon Windpower II LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; High Trail Wind Farm, LLC; EDP-Energias De Portugal, S.A. *Description:* Blue Canyon Windpower II, LLC et al submits an application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional facilities etc. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0196. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings *Docket Numbers:* ER00-1857-007. *Applicants:* Split Rock Energy LLC. *Description:* Split Rock Energy LLC, Notice of Non-Material Change in Status. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-5063. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER01-2508-002. *Applicants:* ENMAX Energy Marketing, Inc. *Description:* ENMAX Energy Marketing, Inc submits a notice of change in status that reflects a departure from the facts relied upon in the grant of market-based rate authority. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0188. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-700-004. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corporation submits Substitute Alternate First Revised Sheet 264 et al in compliance w/FERC's order on rehearing and compliance filings issued on 4/19/07. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-0201. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1355-002. *Applicants:* Evergreen Wind Power, LLC. *Description:* Errata to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Evergreen Wind Power, LLC. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070601-5061. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-596-001. *Applicants:* E. ON U.S., LLC. *Description:* Louisville Gas and Electric Company et al submits information required by the 5/3/07 deficiency letter & informs of changes that after consideration & in response to the deficiency letter they propose to make to the original filing. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0186. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-883-001. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits First Revised Service Agreement 1267 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Tariff 1. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0183. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-946-001. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in clean and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending the existing Agreement, with City of Holton, KS, through 9/30/07. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0187. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-947-001. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in clear and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending the existing Agreement through 9/30/07. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0169. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-948-001. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in clean and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending the existing Agreement through 9/30/07. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0184. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-995-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Request of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc for waiver of business practice standard re Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0185. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-996-000. *Applicants:* Goldendale Energy Center, LLC. *Description:* Goldendale Energy Center, LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0171. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-997-000. *Applicants:* Calpine Fox LLC. *Description:* Calpine Fox LLC submits a notice of cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0170. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-998-000. *Applicants:* CPN Pleasant Hill, LLC. *Description:* CPN Pleasant Hill, LLC et al submits a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0173. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-999-000. *Applicants:* MEP Pleasant Hill, LLC. *Description:* MEP Pleasant Hill, LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0172. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1000-000; ER07-1001-000; ER07-1002-000. *Applicants:* Las Vegas Power Company, LLC; Sugar Creek Power Company, LLC; Zeeland Power Company, LLC. *Description:* Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, et al. informs FERC that as a result of name changes they have succeeded to the market-based rate tariffs of Mirant Las Vegas, LLC et al. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0174. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1003-000. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Company Services, Inc agent for Alabama Power Co et al. submits this 5/22/07, Revision 2 to the Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service for Alabama Municipal Electric Authority dated 12/29/05. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0175. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1004-000. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Upper Peninsula Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company et al. submit revisions to the Balancing Area Operations Coordination Agreement. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0176. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1005-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation Agreement w/ the City of Sabetha dated as of 5/29/07 pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulation. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0180. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1006-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation Agreement with the City of Minneapolis dated as of 5/29/07 pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0181. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1007-000. *Applicants:* Westar Energy, Inc. *Description:* Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation Agreement with the City of Holton, Kansas dated as of 5/21/07 pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0182. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1008-000. *Applicants:* Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* Kentucky Utilities Company submits Amendment #1 to Contract for Electric Service with the City of Madisonville, Kentucky pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA etc. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0177. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1009-000. *Applicants:* Cleco Power LLC. *Description:* Cleco Power LLC submits an Amendment to its OATT pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, 16 USC, 824d and to Part 35 of FERC's Regulations. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0179. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1010-000. *Applicants:* Sumas Cogeneration Co LP. *Description:* Sumas Cogeneration Company, LP's application for order accepting market-based rate tariff, granting waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0178. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1011-000. *Applicants:* UGI Utilities, Inc. *Description:* UGI Utilities, Inc submits the corrected Annual Update which was originally submitted on 5/31/07 with detailed calculations conducted through its cost-of-service formula rate etc. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0081. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1012-000. *Applicants:* UGI Utilities, Inc. *Description:* UGI Utilities, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 309B et al. to PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff etc. *Filed Date:* 05/31/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0193. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007. *Docket Numbers:* ER07-1014-000. *Applicants:* NSTAR Electric Company. *Description:* NSTAR Electric Co submits its informational filing containing the true-up billings under their Local Service Schedules etc. *Filed Date:* 06/01/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070606-0189. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings: Docket Numbers: FC07-51-000. *Applicants:* CMS Enterprises Company. *Description:* CMS Enterprises Company notification of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status of Jamaica Private Power Co. Ltd and Private Power Operators Ltd. *Filed Date:* 06/05/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070605-5026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 26, 2007. Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings: Docket Numbers: PH07-18-000. *Applicants:* DQE Holdings LLC. *Description:* DQE Holdings LLC submit a FERC Form 65 B Waiver. *Filed Date:* 06/04/2007. *Accession Number:* 20070604-5052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007. 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 *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11656 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ FERC Docket Nos. CP06-61-000, -001, -002 and CP01-23-003; CA State Clearinghouse No. 2006081127; BLM Reference No. CACA-42662] The California State Lands Commission, and the Bureau of Land Management; North Baja Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Availability/Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report and Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for the Proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project June 8, 2007. The environmental staffs of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)(collectively referred to as the Agency Staffs) have prepared the final environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and proposed land use plan amendment (final EIS/EIR/plan amendment) to address North Baja Pipeline, LLC's (North Baja) proposed expansion of its natural gas pipeline system. The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment was prepared as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The purpose of the document is to inform the public and the permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project (Project or proposed Project) and its alternatives, and recommend mitigation measures that would reduce the significant adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible, and, where feasible, to a less than significant level. The Agency Staffs have concluded that if the Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, North Baja's proposed mitigation, and the Agency Staffs' additional mitigation measures, it would be an environmentally acceptable action. The FERC is the lead Federal agency and will use the document to consider the environmental impacts that could result if it issues North Baja a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and a Presidential Permit amendment under sections 7 and 3, respectively, of the Natural Gas Act. The CSLC is the lead State agency and will use the document to consider North Baja's application to amend its existing right- of-way lease across the State's Sovereign and School Lands in conjunction with the environmental impacts that could result from any part of the Project in California. The BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the document because the Project would cross Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs-South Coast, El Centro, and Yuma Field Offices. The Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR)is also a cooperating agency in the preparation of the document because lands administered by the BOR would be crossed by the Project. Under section 185(f) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the BLM has the authority to issue Right-of-Way Grants for all affected Federal lands. The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment will be used by the BLM to consider whether to amend North Baja's existing Right-of-Way Grant and issue Temporary Use Permits for the installation of approximately 67.4 miles of pipeline and ancillary facilities across Federal lands managed by the BLM, the BOR, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment will also be used by the BLM to consider amending the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (as amended), which would be necessary for pipeline construction outside of designated utility corridors, as well as amending the Yuma District Resource Management Plan, which would be necessary for pipeline construction across the Milpitas Wash Special Management Area. The BLM proposes to adopt the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment per Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)§ 1506.3 to meet its responsibilities under NEPA and its planning regulations per Title 43 CFR Part 1610. The BLM will present separate Records of Decision for the Right-of-Way Grant and the plan amendments for the North Baja Pipeline Expansion Project after the issuance of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment. The concurrence or non-concurrence of the BOR and the FWS would be considered in the BLM's decision. The existing North Baja system is currently certificated by the FERC to transport 512,500 dekatherms per day
(Dthd)(500 million standard cubic feet per day [MMscfd]) of natural gas in a southbound direction. Once completed, the expanded system would be capable of transporting up to 2,932,000 Dthd (2,753 MMscfd) of natural gas from planned liquefied natural gas
(LNG)storage and vaporization terminals located on the Baja California coast in Mexico in a northbound direction for delivery to customers in California and Arizona. In addition to the new volumes from the LNG terminals, North Baja would continue to offer southbound gas transportation service for several existing shippers. The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities proposed by North Baja: • Up to 79.8 miles of pipeline loop 1 (B-Line) adjacent to North Baja's existing pipeline (A-Line) consisting of 11.7 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station at milepost
(MP)0.0 in La Paz County, Arizona to the existing Rannells Trap at MP 11.7 in Riverside County, California, and 68.1 miles of 48-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Rannells Trap to an interconnection at the U.S.-Mexico border at MP 79.8 in Imperial County, California; 1 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system. • 2.1 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline lateral 2 (Arrowhead Extension) extending from the proposed B-Line at MP 7.4 to Southern California Gas Company's (SoCalGas) existing Blythe Compressor Station in Riverside County; 2 A lateral pipeline typically takes gas from the main system to deliver it to a customer, local distribution system, or another interstate transmission system. • 45.7 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral (Imperial Irrigation District [IID] Lateral) extending from MP 74.5 of the B-Line near the existing Ogilby Meter Station to the existing IID El Centro Generating Station in Imperial County; • Modifications at the existing Ehrenberg Compressor Station in LaPaz County and the existing Ogilby Meter Station in Imperial County to allow northbound flow of natural gas; • Metering modifications inside the existing El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) Meter Station at the Ehrenberg Compressor Station site to allow LNG-source gas to be delivered into the El Paso system; • One meter station (Blythe-Arrowhead Meter Station) at SoCalGas' existing Blythe Compressor Station in Riverside County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja system to SoCalGas; • One meter station (El Centro Meter Station) at the IID's existing El Centro Generating Station in Imperial County to measure gas delivery from the North Baja system to the IID; • Two taps and crossover piping where the Arrowhead Extension would connect with the existing A-Line and proposed B-Line in Riverside County; • One tap where the IID Lateral would connect with the proposed B-Line in Imperial County; • Four pig 3 launchers; 3 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion. • Five pig receivers; • Nine remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the B-Line, adjacent to the existing A-Line valve sites; and • Four remote manual valves with automatic shutdown capability on the IID Lateral. The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment has been placed in the public files of the FERC and the CSLC and is available for public inspection at: Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First St., NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
(202)208-1371. California State Lands Commission, 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South, Sacramento, CA 95825,
(916)574-1938. The final EIS/EIR/plan amendment is also available for viewing on the FERC and CSLC Web sites at the Internet addresses below: *http://www.ferc.gov* *http://www.slc.ca.gov.* A limited number of copies of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment are available from the FERC's Public Reference Room identified above. These copies may be requested in hard copy or as .pdf files on a CD that can be read by a computer with a CD-ROM drive. In addition, copies of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment have been mailed to Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; affected landowners; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors to the FERC's proceeding; and other interested parties. Hard copies of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment can be viewed at the following libraries in the Project area: Yuma County Library District, 350 3rd Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364. Palo Verde Valley Library, 125 W. Chanslorway, Blythe, CA 92225. El Centro Public Library, 539 State Street, El Centro, CA 92243. Hemet Public Library, 510 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA 92543. Imperial Public Library, 200 W. 9th Street, Imperial, CA 92251. City of Rancho Mirage Public Library, 42-520 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. Glen Avon Library, 9244 Galena Street, Riverside, CA 92509. Palo Verde District Library, 701 Silver Spur Road, Rollins Hills Estates, CA 90274. Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the FERC, such as orders, notices, and rule makings. In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web site. Information concerning the involvement of the CSLC in the EIS/EIR process may be obtained from Tom Filler, Project Manager, at
(916)574-1938, or on the CSLC Internet website at *http://www.slc.ca.gov.* Information concerning the proposed land use plan amendment and the involvement of the BLM in the EIS/EIR and plan amendment process may be obtained from Lynda Kastoll, Project Manager, at
(760)337-4421. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's publication of the Notice of Availability/Completion of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment in the **Federal Register** initiates a 30-day protest period on the plan amendment. Instructions for filing a protest can be found in section 1.7.7 of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment. The CSLC is expected to consider certification of the final EIS/EIR/plan amendment and act on North Baja's application at a regularly scheduled meeting in mid-2007. Interested parties will be notified of the date, time, and location of the meeting. If you have any questions regarding the CSLC hearing, or wish to testify, please contact Tom Filler at the number above. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-11647 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109; FRL-8129-3] Draft List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inerts to be Considered for Screening under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) directs EPA to develop a chemical screening program using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information to determine whether certain substances may have hormonal effects. In September 2005, EPA published its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals for which testing will be required under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). This document presents the draft list of the first group of chemicals that will be screened in the Agency's EDSP. The draft list was produced using the approach described in the September 2005 notice, and includes chemicals that the Agency, in its discretion, has decided should be tested first, based upon exposure potential. This list should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Nothing in the approach for generating the initial list provides a basis to infer that by simply being on this list these chemicals are suspected to interfere with the endocrine systems of humans or other species, and it would be inappropriate to do so. The first group of chemicals identified for testing includes pesticide active ingredients and High Production Volume
(HPV)chemicals used as pesticide inerts. After considering comments on this draft list of chemicals, EPA will issue a second **Federal Register** notice containing the final list of chemicals. This document does not describe other aspects of the EDSP such as the administrative procedures EPA will use to require testing, the validated tests and battery that will be included in the EDSP, or the timeframe for requiring the testing or receiving the data. These topics will be addressed in subsequent notices published in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* : OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is
(202)564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. *Docket* : All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Phillips, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-1264; e-mail address: *phillips.linda@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you produce, manufacture, use, consume, work with, or import pesticide chemicals. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine section 408(p) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(p). Potentially affected entities, using the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities, may include, but are not limited to: • Chemical manufacturers, importers and processors (NAICS code 325), e.g., persons who manufacture, import or process chemical substances. • Pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturers (NAICS code 3253), e.g., persons who manufacture, import or process pesticide, fertilizer and agricultural chemicals. • Scientific research and development services (NAICS code 5417), e.g., persons who conduct testing of chemical substances for endocrine effects. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Scope of comments sought* . As discussed in more detail later in this document, the Agency has already sought and considered comments on the priority-setting approach before issuing the final approach in 2005 (70 FR 56449, September 27, 2005), which was used to identify the initial group of chemicals presented today. As such, the Agency is not seeking comment on the particulars of the approach used. Since FFDCA requires that all pesticides be screened under the EDSP, any suggestions to add a chemical to the list should be based on the application of the Agency's approach and supported with additional information. Should you have more recent information that affects the Agency's application of the approach, e.g., chemical is no longer manufactured or sold in the United States as a pesticide or used as an inert in pesticides, please provide the supporting information and data with your comment. As indicated in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice, any company subject to a testing requirement under Tier 1 may assert (supported by appropriate data) during the comment period for the draft list that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor and that the Tier 1 EDSP screening is unnecessary. EPA does not intend to permit chemicals on this list to bypass Tier 1 screening and move directly to Tier 2 testing without appropriate data to support such an action. 2. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 3. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at the estimate. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggested alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Introduction A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Based on the approach described in the **Federal Register** notice of September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56449) (FRL-7716-9), EPA is announcing the draft list of the first group of chemicals that will be screened in the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).As required by FFDCA, all pesticides must eventually be screened under the EDSP, and this first group is simply a starting point.Because EPA developed this draft list of chemicals based upon exposure potential, it should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors, and it would be inappropriate to do so. Nothing in the approach for generating the initial list provides a basis to infer that by simply being on this list these chemicals are suspected to interfere with the endocrine systems of humans or other species. The first group of chemicals to be tested consists of chemicals that section 408(p) requires be screened, i.e., pesticide active ingredients and chemicals used as pesticide inert ingredients that are also High Production Volume
(HPV)chemicals. Following consideration of comments on this draft list of chemicals, EPA will issue a second **Federal Register** notice containing the final list of chemicals. This document does not describe other aspects of the EDSP such as the administrative procedures EPA will use to require testing, the validated tests and battery that will be included in the EDSP, or the timeframe for requiring the testing or receiving the data. These topics will be addressed in subsequent notices published in the **Federal Register** . EPA anticipates that it may, in the future, modify its approach to selecting chemicals for screening. Information and factors that EPA may consider in selecting chemicals could include: Public input; the results of testing chemicals on the initial list; management considerations to increase the integration of screening with other regulatory activities; implementation considerations flowing from a decision to extend screening to additional categories of chemicals (e.g., nonpesticide chemical substances); and the availability of new priority-setting tools (e.g., High Throughput Pre-Screening
(HTPS)or Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship
(QSAR)models). EPA developed its EDSP in response to the Congressional mandate in section 408(p) of FFDCA to “develop a screening program. . .to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effects as [EPA] may designate” (21 U.S.C. 346a(p)). When carrying out the program, the statute requires EPA to “provide for the testing of all pesticide chemicals.” The statute also provides EPA with discretionary authority to “provide for the testing of any other substance that may have an effect that is cumulative to an effect of a pesticide chemical if the Administrator determines that a substantial population may be exposed to such a substance.” In addition, section 1457 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)provides EPA with discretionary authority to provide for testing, under the FFDCA 408(p) screening program, “of any other substances that may be found in sources of drinking water if the Administrator determines that a substantial population may be exposed to such substance.” The purpose of this document is to announce the draft initial list of chemicals to be screened in the Agency's EDSP. EPA used an approach based on the priority-setting approach described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. The approach focused on human exposure-related factors rather than using a combination of exposure- and effects-related factors. The approach did not include a literature search for or consideration of any data on potential endocrine effects. It is therefore inappropriate to infer that by simply being on this list, these chemicals are suspected to interfere with the endocrine systems of humans or other species. As described in detail in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice, for the approach EPA: • Focused chemical selection on the subset of chemicals for which testing is required (i.e., pesticide chemicals). • Used exposure data as the basis for chemical selection. • Deferred consideration of nominations from the public. • Excluded mixtures. • Excluded chemicals that are no longer produced or used in the U.S. The approach described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice further indicated that the following would be excluded from the initial list of chemicals for screening. • Substances anticipated to have low potential to cause endocrine disruption (e.g., certain Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) List 4 inerts, most polymers with number average molecular weight greater than 1,000 daltons, strong mineral acids, and strong mineral bases). • “Positive control” substances that are being used by EPA to validate screening assays proposed for the Tier 1 battery. See Unit IV.G. for more information. EPA's general focus in the approach for the initial list was on pesticide active ingredients and inerts with relatively greater potential for human exposure. The emphasis on human exposure does not necessarily mean that the list will not contain substances that may not also have potentially high levels of environmental exposure to ecological receptors. This **Federal Register** document presents the draft list of chemicals in alphabetical order. An ordinal ranking of chemicals selected using the approach was not created. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Section 408(p) of FFDCA requires EPA to “develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as [EPA] may designate.” (21 U.S.C. 346a(p)). The statute generally requires EPA to “provide for the testing of all pesticide chemicals.” (21 U.S.C. 346a(p)(3)). However, EPA is authorized to exempt a chemical, by order upon a determination that “the substance is anticipated not to produce any effect in humans similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen.” (21 U.S.C. 346a(p)(4)). “Pesticide chemical” is defined as “any substance that is a pesticide within the meaning of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, including all active and inert ingredients of such pesticide.” (21 U.S.C. 321(q)(1)). III. Background EPA initially set forth the EDSP in the August 11, 1998 **Federal Register** notice (63 FR 42852) (FRL-6021-3), and solicited public comment on the program in the December 28, 1998, **Federal Register** notice. The program set forth in these notices was based on the recommendations of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), which was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, section 9(c). The EDSTAC was comprised of members representing the commercial chemical and pesticides industries, Federal and State agencies, worker protection and labor organizations, environmental and public health groups, and research scientists. EDSTAC recommended that EPA's program address both potential human and ecological effects; examine effects on estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone-related processes; and include non-pesticide chemicals, contaminants, and mixtures in addition to pesticides (Ref. 1). Based on these recommendations, EPA developed a two-tiered approach, referred to as the EDSP. The purpose of the Tier 1 screening (referred to as “screening”) is to identify substances that have the potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems using a battery of assays. The purpose of Tier 2 testing (referred to as “testing”) is to identify and establish a dose-response relationship for any adverse effects that might result from the interactions identified through the Tier 1 assays. EDSTAC also recommended that EPA establish a priority-setting approach for choosing chemicals to undergo Tier 1 screening. EPA described this approach in the **Federal Register** of September 2005. More information on EPA's priority setting approach for the EDSP is available at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/prioritysetting* . EPA currently is implementing its EDSP in three major parts that are being developed in parallel and with substantial work on each well underway. 1. *Assay validation* . Under FFDCA section 408(p), EPA is required to use “appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information” to determine whether substances may have estrogenic effects in humans or other endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate. EPA is validating assays that are candidates for inclusion in the Tier 1 screening battery and Tier 2 tests, and will select the appropriate screening assays for the Tier 1 battery based on the validation data. Validation is defined as the process by which the reliability and relevance of test methods are evaluated for the purpose of supporting a specific use. The Tier 1 screening battery is expected to complete peer review and be ready for use early in 2008. The status of each assay can be viewed on the EDSP website in the Assay Status table: *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm.* 2. *Priority setting* . EPA described its priority setting approach for the first group of pesticide chemicals to be tested in the Federal Register of September 2005, and this document today announces the draft initial list of chemicals to undergo Tier 1 screening. The Agency expects to finalize this initial list of chemicals early in 2008. More information on EPA's priority setting approach for the EDSP is available at *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/prioritysetting* . 3. *Procedures* . EPA intends to commence Tier 1 screening of the first group of pesticide chemicals by issuing test orders under FFDCA section 408(p) to chemical companies identified as the manufacturer or processor of the identified chemicals, including the pesticide registrant. EPA is developing a draft implementation policy that will describe the procedures that EPA will use to issue orders, the procedures that order recipients would use to respond to the order, how data protection and compensation will be addressed in the test orders, and other related procedures or policies. In addition, EPA is developing a draft template for the test order and a draft information collection request
(ICR)to obtain the necessary clearances under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Agency expects to seek public comment on the draft implementation policy and related documents late spring or early summer 2007, and after considering those comments, EPA expects to finalize the policy by the end of 2007. Based on the current timing for each of the three major parts of the EDSP, the Agency intends to initiate the EDSP Tier 1 screening for the first group of pesticide chemicals early in 2008, at which time the final Tier 1 screening battery and the final procedures will be available. This document deals only with the draft list of chemicals initially selected to go through screening in the Tier 1 assays. As indicated in Unit II.A, EPA intends to address the other aspects of the EDSP in subsequent notices published in the **Federal Register** . IV. Development of the Initial List of Chemicals The following sections summarize the approach that was used to develop the draft initial list of chemicals, which is described in more detail in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. Again, it would be inappropriate to construe the draft initial list of chemicals as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. Nothing in the approach for generating the initial list provides a basis to infer that by simply being on this list, these chemicals are suspected to interfere with the endocrine systems of humans or other species. A. Universe of Chemicals EPA indicated in the September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56449) (FRL-7716-9) **Federal Register** notice that the universe of chemicals to be considered would include:
(1)Pesticide active ingredients and
(2)high production volume
(HPV)chemicals that are also pesticide inerts. 1. *Pesticide active ingredients.* The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) defines a pesticide active ingredient as a chemical contained in pesticide products that prevents, destroys, repels, or mitigates any pest, or is a plant regulator, defoliant, desiccant, or nitrogen stabilizer. (7 U.S.C. 136(2)(u)). The universe of pesticide active ingredients which are required to be screened for their potential to adversely affect the endocrine system corresponds to the active ingredients EPA has scheduled for review in its “registration review” program. (FIFRA requires EPA periodically to review the registration of all pesticide products, which the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)will implement through a program called “registration review.” It should be noted that OPP may group similar active ingredients together, e.g., 2,4-D esters, salts, and amines, in “cases” that are evaluated at the same time. The EDSP, however, will focus on screening individual active ingredients.) The registration review schedule identifies all pesticide active ingredients that are used in currently registered products and indicates when they will be addressed in EPA's periodic registration review program. The draft registration review schedule was posted on EPA's website in August 2005 (Ref. 2). The draft schedule listed all registration review cases and pesticide active ingredients as of September 30, 2004. The draft schedule listed 666 registration review cases, comprising 1,056 active ingredients. Only those pesticide active ingredients that appear on this draft schedule were considered for generating the initial list of chemicals to undergo testing in the EDSP. The list is consistent with the final registration review schedule posted in October 2006. The principal difference between the draft and the final schedule is the inclusion of new active ingredients contained in newly registered pesticides as of September 30, 2005. The Agency does not expect any of the newly added active ingredients to be found in multiple exposure pathways. There are currently 678 registration review cases, comprising 1,077 active ingredients. These numbers will change annually as registration review schedule updates are announced. 2. *High production volume pesticide inerts* . HPV chemicals are those substances that are not pesticide active ingredients and that are produced or imported into the U.S. in amounts greater than or equal to one million pounds per year. The list of HPV chemicals is based on the non-confidential list of 2002 Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)Inventory Update Rule
(IUR)chemicals (Ref. 3). Pesticide inert chemicals are defined as any ingredients in pesticide product formulations other than the active ingredient. (7 U.S.C. 136(2)(m)). OPP maintains an inventory of pesticide inert chemicals that are categorized into the following four lists (Ref. 4): • *List 1--Inert Ingredients of Toxicological Concern* . Any product containing a List 1 ingredient must include the label statement: This product contains the toxic inert ingredient (name of inert). • *List 2--Potentially Toxic Inert Ingredients/High Priority for Testing Inerts* . The substances on this list may be structurally similar to chemicals known to be toxic; some have data suggesting a concern. • *List 3--Inerts of Unknown Toxicity* . Inert ingredients on this list have not yet been determined to be of known potential toxicological concern nor have they been determined to be of minimal concern. These substances will continue to be evaluated to determine if they merit reclassification to List 1, 2, or 4. • *List 4--Inerts of Minimal Concern* . This list is subdivided into List 4A (minimal risk inert ingredients) and List 4B (inerts which have sufficient data to substantiate that they can be used safely in pesticide products). Table 1 presents the number of HPV and pesticide inert chemicals and the number of chemicals that are contained on both lists. **Table 1.-HPV and Pesticide Inert Chemical Counts** Chemical List Number of Chemicals High Production Volume Chemicals 1 2,708 Pesticide Inert Chemicals 2,775 2 Overlap of HPV/Pesticide Inert Chemicals 643 1 Based on the 2002 TSCA IUR. 2 The number of inert ingredients contained in one or more registered pesticide products as of April 27, 2007. Note that as new products and formulations are registered, and as other products are canceled or reformulated, the number of inert ingredients contained in one or more registered pesticide products can change. As shown in Table 1, there are a total of 643 chemicals that are both an HPV and pesticide inert chemical. This overlap was identified by matching Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS)Registry numbers on each of the lists. Note that the list of pesticide inerts contains 109 chemicals without corresponding CAS numbers. This list of 109 pesticide inert chemicals was reviewed to determine whether any overlap could be identified based on chemical name. Table 2 presents chemical matches that were identified based on name, and also includes the CAS number provided on the HPV list. These chemicals shown in Table 2 were included in the universe of HPV/pesticide inert overlap chemicals considered for EDSP screening as shown in Table 1 (Ref. 5). **Table 2.—Additional Chemicals Included in the Universe of HPV/Pesticide Inert Overlap Chemicals** HPV CAS Number HPV Name Inert Name 67784901 Fatty acids, coco, reaction products with 2- [(2-aminoethyl) amino] ethanol Fatty acids, coco, reaction products with 2-[(2-aminoethyl) amino] ethanol, alkylation products with methyl acrylate, sodium salts 68442091 Naphthalenesulfonic acid, sodium salt, isopropylated Naphthalenesulfonic acid, isopropylisohexyl-, sodium salt B. Approach for Selecting the Initial List of Chemicals to Undergo Screening The following sections describe the approach that was used for selecting the initial list of chemicals to undergo screening, which is described in more detail in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. It is important to note that the approach did not include a literature search for or consideration of any data on potential endocrine effects. In fact, nothing in the approach for generating the initial list provides a basis to infer that by simply being on this list, these chemicals are suspected to interfere with the endocrine systems of humans or other species, and it would be inappropriate to make any such references. 1. *Pesticide active ingredients approach* . EPA applied the approach outlined below and described in detail in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. EPA used several groups of data to identify pesticide active ingredients to include on the initial list of chemicals for screening. These data focus on the potential for human exposure by different pathways, including those resulting from: i. Consumption of food containing pesticide residues (i.e., food pathway); ii. Consumption of drinking water containing pesticide residues (i.e., water pathway); iii. Residential use of pesticide products (i.e., residential use pathway); and/or iv. Occupational contact with pesticide-treated surfaces (i.e., occupational exposure pathway). The data sources analyzed for each pathway are described in Unit IV.C. For each of the four pathways, EPA used the most current data available from each data source to identify active ingredients. As indicated in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice, these data sources were selected to provide occurrence/usage data on a broad range of pesticide chemicals and across a wide geographical scope. Although the final selected data sources do have limitations, EPA believes that these data sources are suitable for identifying pesticide active ingredients likely to be among those having either potentially widespread or relatively higher levels of human exposure than would be expected for other active ingredients. These data sources were not used to create a definitive, scientifically rigorous list of pesticide chemicals to which the public is the most highly exposed. Nor did EPA create quantitative exposure estimates for this analysis using these databases. In accordance with the approach described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice, EPA considered pesticide active ingredients that indicated likely exposure via multiple pathways a higher priority for screening. Substances having potential exposure through all four pathways were considered the highest priority for inclusion on the draft list of chemicals for screening. Chemicals having potential exposure via three pathways were considered next highest in priority. For the purposes of further establishing priorities for pesticide active ingredients in three pathways, greater priority was given to chemicals having potential exposure via the food pathway, followed by the occupational pathway (i.e., two of the three exposure pathways had to be food and occupational exposure to be included on the draft list of chemicals for screening). Specific details on EPA's approach for selecting pesticide active ingredients are presented in Unit VI. of the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. In addition, a detailed summary of the analyses performed for each data source for pesticide active ingredients are available in the Docket (Ref. 6). 2. *High production volume pesticide inerts approach* . EPA used a similar approach to identify HPV/pesticide inert chemicals to be included in the initial list for screening. In general, EPA had more extensive information available to assess potential exposure to pesticide active ingredients than to assess HPV/pesticide inert chemical exposure. In addition, more extensive information was available on pesticide active ingredient usage (including both agricultural and residential) than was available for HPV/pesticide inert chemicals (including both pesticidal and nonpesticidal uses of those same substances). For these reasons, the specific pathways and data sources EPA identified for selecting an initial set of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals for endocrine disruptor screening differed somewhat from those for selecting pesticide active ingredients. For HPV/pesticide inert chemicals, EPA applied the approach outlined below and described in detail in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. EPA used several groups of data to identify HPV/pesticide inert chemicals to include on the initial list of chemicals for screening. These data focus on indicators of potential human exposure using the following types of monitoring data: i. Human biological samples (i.e., human biological monitoring pathway); ii. Ecological tissues that have human food uses (e.g., fish tissues) (i.e., ecological biological pathway); iii. Drinking water (i.e., drinking water pathway); and/or iv. Indoor air (i.e., indoor air pathway). The data sources analyzed for each pathway are described in Unit IV.D. For each of these four pathways, EPA reviewed the most current existing data available from each data source to identify HPV/pesticide inert chemicals. As with pesticide active ingredients, these data sources were selected to provide occurrence data on a broad range of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals across a wide geographical scope. Although the final selected data sources do have limitations, EPA believes that these data sources are suitable for identifying HPV/pesticide inert chemicals likely to be among those having either potentially widespread or higher levels of human exposure than would be expected for other HPV/pesticide inert chemicals. These data sources were not used to create a definitive, scientifically rigorous list of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals to which the public is the most highly exposed. Nor did EPA use these databases to create quantitative exposure estimates in this analysis. In accordance with the approach described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice, EPA considered HPV/pesticide inert chemicals present in multiple pathways a higher priority for screening. Substances having potential exposure through all four pathways were considered the highest priority for inclusion on the draft list of chemicals for screening. Chemicals having potential exposure via three pathways were considered next highest in priority. For the purposes of further establishing priorities for HPV/pesticide inert chemicals in three pathways, greater priority was given to chemicals observed in human biological monitoring data (i.e., one of the three exposure pathways had to be human biological monitoring to be included on the draft list of chemicals for screening). Specific details on EPA's priority setting approach for selecting HPV/pesticide inert chemicals are presented in Unit VII. of the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. In addition, a detailed summary of the analyses performed for each data source for high production volume pesticide inerts are available in the Docket (Ref. 7). C. Pesticide Active Ingredients Data Sources The pesticide active ingredient data sources analyzed are briefly described below. Detailed data source summaries were prepared for each data source and are available in the Docket (Ref. 8). In addition, each of these data sources are described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. 1. *Food pathway* . Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to determine the presence of pesticide active ingredients in food containing pesticide residues that may be consumed: • Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). • U.S. Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program (USDA PDP). • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)Pesticide Monitoring Database. EPA used the most recent CSFII to develop a list of the top 20 foods consumed in the U.S., in terms of the mean daily consumption by the general population. The list was derived using CSFII data in conjunction with recipe translations that appear in the revised Food Commodity Intake Database
(FCID)(Ref. 9). The FCID can be reviewed at *http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14514* . The list of top 20 foods can be found in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. Having identified the top 20 raw agricultural foods, EPA identified the pesticide active ingredients detected on these foods using information collected by two Federal agency monitoring programs, the USDA PDP and the Surveillance Monitoring Program conducted by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Additional information can be found at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/index.htm* . Additional information on the FDA program appears at *http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pesrpts.html* . Pesticide active ingredients that were detected in any of the top foods, as reported by the PDP or FDA Surveillance Monitoring Program sources, were considered for priority setting purposes. 2. *Water pathway* . Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to characterize the potential presence of pesticide active ingredients in drinking water: • EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB). • EPA Chemical-Specific Monitoring Data. • United States Geological Survey (USGS)/EPA Reservoir Monitoring Study. • Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). • National Sediment Quality Database: 1980 to 1999 (or National Sediment Inventory (NSI)) Sediment Data. • National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). • National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) Surface Water and Sediment Data. • National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Ground Water, Surface Water, and Sediment Data. • USDA Pesticide Data Program
(PDP)Water Data. i. *EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB)* . The PGWDB is a collection of ground water monitoring studies conducted by Federal, State and local governments; the pesticide industry; and private institutions between 1971-1991. The PGWDB contains pesticide data from monitoring of untreated ground water. Further details can be found in “EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database, A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991 National Summary” (Ref. 10). ii. *EPA Chemical-Specific Monitoring Data* . Pesticide registrants have conducted and submitted to the Agency targeted surface water and ground water monitoring studies for approximately 50 pesticide active ingredients. In implementing its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals for screening, EPA reviewed these chemical-specific monitoring data sources to determine if they contain information for pesticide active ingredients for which data from other water monitoring data sources were not available. iii. *United States Geological Survey (USGS)/EPA Reservoir Monitoring Study* . The USGS/EPA Reservoir Monitoring study contains information for 178 different pesticides and degradation products in samples of raw water (at the intake point) and from finished drinking water (at the tap prior to entering the distribution system) collected in 1999 and 2000. Additional information on the USGS/EPA Reservoir Monitoring Study can be found in “Pesticides in Select Water Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 1990-2000: Summary of Results from a Pilot Monitoring Program” (Ref. 11). iv. *Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)* . EMAP is an EPA research initiative that collected sediment samples in 18 states at various times between 1990 and 1998. EMAP contains approximately 397 individual data sets. Applicable EMAP sediment data sets identified and included in the analysis are described in the Data Manipulation Summary for Pesticide Active Ingredients (Ref. 6). Further details can be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/emap/* . v. *National Sediment Inventory (NSI)* . EPA's Office of Science and Technology
(OST)initiated the NSI to document the composition of sediment in rivers, lakes, oceans, and estuaries. The NSI includes data collected by a variety of Federal, State, regional, local, and other monitoring programs from 1980 through 1999. It includes over 4.6 million analytical observations for over 50,000 monitoring stations across the country of sediment chemistry, tissue residues, and sediment toxicity data. EPA used both sediment and sub-sediment data from the NSI for the purpose of setting priorities for EDSP. Further details on the NSI database and the National Sediment Quality Survey, which the NSI was developed to support, can be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/nsidbase.html* . vi. *National Drinking Water Chemical Occurrence Database (NCOD)* . NCOD provides a library of water sample analytical data (or “samples data”) that EPA uses for analysis, rulemaking, and rule evaluation. The drinking water sample data, collected at Public Water Systems, are for both regulated and unregulated contaminants. Further details can be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/ncod/index.html* . vii. *National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) Data* . The NASQAN, a monitoring and data collection program conducted by the USGS, has focused on monitoring the water quality of four of the nation's largest river systems: the Mississippi, the Columbia, the Colorado, and the Rio Grande since 1995. A network of over 50 stations monitors the concentrations of a broad range of chemicals including pesticides, major ions, and trace elements. NASQAN contains data for over 70 chemicals. EPA used both surface water and sediment data from the NASQAN for the purposes of setting priorities for EDSP. Further details can be found at: *http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/* . viii. *The National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)* . The NAWQA Program was designed to study 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and aquifer systems to provide both short-term information necessary for today's water-resource management decisions, and the long-term information needed for policy decisions. EPA used surface water, ground water, and sediment data from the NAWQA for the purposes of setting priorities for EDSP. Further details can be found at: *http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/* . ix. *USDA Pesticide Data Program
(PDP)Water Data* . The USDA PDP was designed by USDA in 1991 to collect data on pesticide residues consumed in the U.S. PDP samples are collected as close as possible to the time of consumption. PDP has tested over 50 different commodities, including drinking water, for more than 290 pesticides. Further details can be found at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/index.htm* . Pesticide active ingredients that were detected in monitoring samples from any of the water data sources described in this section were considered for priority setting purposes for the water exposure pathway. 3. *Residential use pathway* . Human exposure to pesticides may occur as the result of use of pesticidal products in and around homes, schools, businesses, public areas, golf courses, and similar sites. Such use patterns, collectively referred to as “residential use,” include: Lawn and garden treatments, insect repellents, termite and other indoor insect control, fumigation products, products applied to pets for flea or tick control, household sanitizers and disinfectants, and many more. EPA obtained pesticide product labeling information from EPA's Labeling and Use Information System (LUIS). These data were used as the primary indicator of pesticides whose use involves potential human exposure by this pathway. Except for products approved only for limited exposure uses, such as rodenticides applied in tamper resistant bait boxes, all currently registered residential use pesticides were considered as having priority with respect to the residential use pathway. The data from the LUIS reports were cross referenced by the Agency with recent Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs). If the RED had recommended cancellation of residential uses, the pesticide was considered to not have residential uses. In such an instance, the pesticide was not included in the residential use pathway. 4. *Occupational exposure pathway* . Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to identify the potential for post-application exposure to pesticide active ingredients: • Agricultural Reentry Task Force
(ARTF)- Science Advisory Council on Exposure, Policy Number 003.1, Agricultural Transfer Coefficients. • USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Services (NASS). • California's Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). EPA indicated in the approach published in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice that another source of pesticide use information is AgroTrak TM , a product of Doane Marketing Research. EPA did not need to rely on AgroTrak TM data because sufficient data were available from the other publicly available data sources (i.e., NASS and CDPR). Using the ARTF data, EPA identified 14 work activities/crop categories (e.g., tree fruit crops) having the highest transfer coefficients. EPA then identified specific crops associated with the crop categories to use in conjunction with data available from the USDA's NASS and CDPR data to identify the pesticides used on those crops. More information on NASS pesticide use data can be found at *http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass* . More information on CDPR pesticide usage data can be found at *http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm* . Pesticide active ingredients that were used on crops having the highest transfer coefficients were considered for priority setting purposes for the occupational exposure pathway. D. High Production Volume Pesticide Inert Data Sources The HPV/pesticide inert chemical data sources analyzed are briefly described below. Detailed data source summaries were prepared for each data source and are available in the Docket (Ref. 8). In addition, each of these data sources are described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. 1. *Human biomonitoring exposure pathway* . Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to determine the presence of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals in human tissues: • National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III) Priority Toxicant Reference Range Study for Volatile Organic Compounds. • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (NHANES 1999 to 2002). • National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (NHATS). • Total Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM)Breath Study. i. *National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III) Priority Toxicant Reference Range Study for Volatile Organic Compounds* . The Third NHANES (NHANES III) was conducted between 1988 and 1994 on 33,994 people. Several studies (e.g., high blood pressure, immunization status, nutritional blood measures) were conducted under NHANES III. One study relevant to priority setting was the Priority Toxicant Reference Range Study, previously referenced as Ashley *et al* .
(1994)(Ref. 12). This NHANES III article contains relevant human biomonitoring data for over 40 volatile organic compounds (VOCs). ii. *Centers for Disease Control
(CDC)and Prevention's National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (NHANES 1999 to 2002)* . The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CDC published three reports summarizing NHANES sampling data: a. First National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (issued in March 2001, Ref. 13). b. Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (issued in March 2003, Ref. 14). c. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (issued in July 2005, Ref. 15). Each year's report presents data from prior years, in addition to exposure data collected for current and additional chemicals studied. Overall, these reports provide data for 148 environmental chemicals for the survey years 1999 through 2002. These data were used for EDSP priority setting purposes. iii. *National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (NHATS)* . NHATS collected and analyzed human adipose tissue specimens to monitor human exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. NHATS provides relevant human biomonitoring data for over 150 chemicals. Data are available for years 1970 through 1987 in 14 journal articles and reports (Refs. 16-29). However, because a standard set of summarized data parameters has not been published, the NHATS data were previously compiled into a database. (See *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/prioritysetting/database.htm* .) In implementing its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals for screening, EPA considered chemicals for which geometric means were calculated. iv. *Total Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM)Breath Study* . The TEAM study measured individual exposure through air, food, and water in urban populations in several U.S. cities. The TEAM Study reports the results of eight monitoring studies performed in five communities during different seasons of the year. Breath, personal air, outdoor air, and water samples were collected for 30 VOCs (Refs. 30-32). HPV/pesticide inert chemicals that were detected in monitoring samples from any of the human biomonitoring databases described in this section were considered for priority setting purposes for the human biomonitoring pathway. 2. *Ecological biomonitoring exposure pathway* . Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to determine the presence of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals in ecological tissues: • National Sediment Inventory
(NSI)Fish Tissue Data. • National Fish Tissue Study
(NFTS)Data. • National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Aquatic Animal Tissue Data. i. *National Sediment Inventory
(NSI)Fish Tissue Data (NSI Fish Tissue Data)* . This database is described in Unit IV.C.2.v. In implementing its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals for screening, EPA considered the analytical results for fish tissue samples collected after 1989. ii. *National Fish Tissue Study
(NFTS)Data* . EPA initiated this 4-year study in 2000 to define the national background levels for 265 chemicals in fish, establish a baseline to track the progress of pollution control activities, and identify areas where contaminant levels are high enough to warrant further investigation. More details can be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/results.htm* . iii. *National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Aquatic Animal Tissue Data* . This database, which also contains information on surface water and ground water monitoring studies, is described in Unit IV.C.2.viii. NAWQA has recently made aquatic organism tissue data available for a variety of species and tissues. EPA considered NAWQA tissue data for all species and tissue types for EDSP priority setting purposes. HPV/pesticide inert chemicals that were detected in monitoring samples from any of the ecological biomonitoring databases described in this section were considered for priority setting purposes for the ecological biomonitoring pathway. 3. *Drinking Water Data Exposure Pathway* . Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to determine the presence of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals in drinking water. • National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). • National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Drinking and Tap Water. • TEAM Drinking Water Data. • National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) Surface Water and Sediment Data. • National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Ground Water, Surface Water, and Sediment Data. i. *National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)* . This database is described in Unit IV.C.2.vi. ii. *National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Drinking and Tap Water* . EPA designed the NHEXAS program to evaluate comprehensive human exposure to multiple chemicals from multiple routes on both a community and regional scale, as well as its association with environmental concentrations and personal activities (Refs. 33-36, 45). Drinking water data and tap water from NHEXAS were used for priority setting purposes for this pathway. iii. *TEAM Drinking Water Data* . The TEAM study is described in Unit IV.D.1.iv. iv. *National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) Data* . This database, which contains information on surface water monitoring studies, is described in Unit IV.C.2.vii. v. *National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)* . This database, which contains information on surface water and ground water monitoring studies, is described in Unit IV.C.2.viii. HPV/pesticide inert chemicals that were detected in monitoring samples from any of the drinking water databases described in this section were considered for priority setting purposes for the drinking water exposure pathway. 4. *Indoor Air Exposure Pathway.* Relevant data were extracted from the following data sources to determine the presence of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals in indoor air: • EPA/Office of Research and Development
(ORD)Journal Articles. • NHEXAS - Indoor and Personal Air Data. • TEAM Air Data. i. *EPA/Office of Research and Development
(ORD)Journal Articles* . The following eight EPA/ORD-authored journal articles and reports provide indoor and personal air monitoring data: Brown *et al* . (1994), Daisey *et al* . (1994), Kelly *et al* . (1994), Immerman and Schaum (1990), Samfield (1992), Shah *et al* . (1988), Sheldon *et al* . (1992), and Shields *et al* .
(1996)(Ref. 37-44). In implementing its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals for screening, EPA excluded the Kelly *et al* .
(1994)article, as this article only provides outdoor air data. ii. *NHEXAS-Indoor and Personal Air Data* . The NHEXAS program was designed to evaluate comprehensive human exposure via indoor and outdoor air to multiple chemicals on a community and regional scale. Samples were collected of both the indoor and outdoor air that people breathe. Preliminary results of Phase I of NHEXAS were reported in 15 journal articles published in 1999. Four of these 15 journal articles provided information that is applicable to indoor air monitoring (Refs. 33-36, 45). In implementing its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals for screening, EPA considered both NHEXAS indoor and/or personal air samples for EDSP priority setting purposes. iii. *TEAM Air Data* . The TEAM study is described in Unit IV.D.1.iv. The ORD literature (see Unit IV.D.4.i.) includes all of the indoor air data collected in the TEAM study; therefore, EPA considered TEAM data in implementing its approach for selecting the initial list of chemicals along with the ORD data rather than as a separate source of information. HPV/pesticide inert chemicals that were detected in monitoring samples from any of the indoor air databases described in this section were considered for priority setting purposes for the indoor air exposure pathway. E. Integration of Pathway Priorities for Pesticide Active Ingredients The Agency analyzed the data sources for each pathway to produce four candidate lists of chemicals for potential screening using the endocrine disruptor screening battery. A number of pesticide active ingredients were identified for more than one pathway, and some chemicals appeared only in a single pathway. Table 3 presents the number of unique pesticide active ingredients included on each list. **Table 3.—Number of Pesticide Active Ingredients on Each Pathway List** Exposure Pathway Number of Unique Pesticide Active Ingredients Overall Pesticides Combined List 690 1 Food Pathway 92 Water Pathway 130 Residential Use Pathway 381 2 Occupational Exposure Pathway 564 1 One active ingredient was excluded because its registration was recently canceled; three active ingredients were excluded because they only have import tolerances (i.e., there are no domestic registrations for these active ingredients). 2 Three hundred and eighty-one active ingredients were identified with residential uses based on the output of the LUIS report. These data were used to generate the list of active ingredients listed in Table 5. EPA performed a quality assurance review of the 64 chemicals presented in Table 5 to verify residential use. Table 4 presents the number of pesticide active ingredients according to the number and types of pathways in which they were observed. **Table 4.—Number of Pesticide Active Ingredients According to the Number of Pathways in which they were Observed** Number
(Type)of Pathways Number of Pesticide Active Ingredients 4 (Food, Water, Residential, Occupational) 28 3 (Food, Water, Occupational) 19 3 (Food, Water, Residential) 0 3 (Food, Residential, Occupational) 17 3 (Water, Residential, Occupational) 33 2 (Food, Water) 1 2 (Food, Residential) 1 2 (Food, Occupational) 22 2 (Water, Residential) 3 2 (Water, Occupational) 40 2 (Residential, Occupational) 175 1
(Food)4 1 (Water) 6 1 (Residential) 111 1 (Occupational) 230 Total 690 Because there were a large number of chemicals from which to select, it was necessary to establish priorities within the pathways. EPA gave priority to those pesticide active ingredients that appeared in four exposure pathways, followed by those that appeared in three pathways. Further, for pesticide active ingredients appearing in three pathways, EPA gave priority to those where the food pathway was represented because of the potential for widespread exposure to the general population, followed by those where the occupational exposure pathway was represented due to the potential for workers to be highly exposed. Table 5 presents the draft initial list of 64 pesticide active ingredients to undergo screening in the Tier 1 assays under the EDSP, along with an indication of the pathways in which they appeared. Because this list of pesticide active ingredients was selected on the basis of exposure potential only, it should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. **Table 5.—Pesticide Active Ingredients** Chemical Name CAS Number Total Pathways Food Water Residential Occupational Chemicals in 4 Pathways 2,4-D 94757 4 x x x x Atrazine 1912249 4 x x x x Benfluralin 1861401 4 x x x x Bifenthrin 82657043 4 x x x x Captan 133062 4 x x x x Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester 759944 4 x x x x Carbaryl 63252 4 x x x x Chlorothalonil 1897456 4 x x x x Chlorpyrifos 2921882 4 x x x x Dichlobenil 1194656 4 x x x x Disulfoton 298044 4 x x x x Fenvalerate 51630581 4 x x x x Glyphosate 1071836 4 x x x x Imidacloprid 138261413 4 x x x x Malathion 121755 4 x x x x Metalaxyl 57837191 4 x x x x Methiocarb 2032657 4 x x x x Metolachlor 51218452 4 x x x x Metribuzin 21087649 4 x x x x Myclobutanil 88671890 4 x x x x Norflurazon 27314132 4 x x x x Permethrin 52645531 4 x x x x Propiconazole 60207901 4 x x x x Propyzamide 23950585 4 x x x x Quintozene 82688 4 x x x x Simazine 122349 4 x x x x Triadimefon 43121433 4 x x x x Trifluralin 1582098 4 x x x x Chemicals in 3 Pathways 4,7-Methano-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, 2-(2-ethylhexyl)-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro- 113484 3 x x x Abamectin 71751412 3 x x x Acephate 30560191 3 x x x Aldicarb 116063 3 x x x Allethrin 584792 3 x x x Azinphos-Methyl 86500 3 x x x Carbofuran 1563662 3 x x x Cyfluthrin 68359375 3 x x x Cypermethrin 52315078 3 x x x DCPA (or chlorthal-dimethyl) 1861321 3 x x x Diazinon 333415 3 x x x Dichlorvos 62737 3 x x x Dicofol 115322 3 x x x Dimethoate 60515 3 x x x Endosulfan 115297 3 x x x Esfenvalerate 66230044 3 x x x Ethoprop 13194484 3 x x x Fenbutatin oxide 13356086 3 x x x Flutolanil 66332965 3 x x x Folpet 133073 3 x x x Gardona (cis-isomer) 22248799 3 x x x Iprodione 36734197 3 x x x Linuron 330552 3 x x x Methamidophos 10265926 3 x x x Methidathion 950378 3 x x x Methomyl 16752775 3 x x x Methyl parathion 298000 3 x x x o-Phenylphenol 90437 3 x x x Oxamyl 23135220 3 x x x Phosmet 732116 3 x x x Piperonyl butoxide 51036 3 x x x Propachlor 1918167 3 x x x Propargite 2312358 3 x x x Pyridine, 2-(1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy) ethoxy)- 95737681 3 x x x Resmethrin 10453868 3 x x x Tebuconazole 107534963 3 x x x Total = 64 Pesticide Active Ingredients) F. Integration of Pathway Priorities for High Production Volume/Pesticide Inerts The Agency analyzed the data sources for each HPV/pesticide inert exposure pathway to produce four candidate lists of chemicals for potential screening using the endocrine disruptor screening battery. A number of HPV/pesticide inerts were identified for more than one pathway, and some chemicals appeared only in a single pathway. Table 6 presents the number of unique high production volume pesticide inerts included on each list. **Table 6.—Number of High Production Volume Pesticide Inerts on Each Pathway List** Exposure Pathway Number of Unique HPV/Inert Chemicals Overall Combined List 62 Human Biological Monitoring Exposure Pathway 14 Ecological Biological Monitoring Exposure Pathway 17 Chemicals in Drinking Water Exposure Pathway 19 Indoor Air Monitoring Exposure Pathway 48 Table 7 presents the number of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals according to the number and types of pathways in which they were observed. **Table 7.—Number of HPV/Pesticide Inert Chemicals According to the Number of Pathways in which they were Observed** Number
(Type)of Pathways Number of HPV/ Pesticide Inert Chemicals 4 (Human, Eco, Water, Air) 8 3 (Human, Eco, Water) 1 3 (Human, Eco, Air) 0 3 (Human, Water, Air) 0 3 (Eco, Water, Air) 3 2 (Human, Eco) 0 2 (Human, Water) 1 2 (Human, Air) 2 2 (Eco, Water) 0 2 (Eco, Air) 0 2 (Water, Air) 1 1 (Human) 2 1
(Eco)5 1 (Water) 5 1
(Air)34 Because there were a large number of chemicals from which to select, it was necessary to establish priorities within the pathways. In choosing which HPV/pesticide inert chemicals to propose for the initial screening list, EPA gave highest priority to chemicals that appeared in four exposure pathways, followed by chemicals that appeared in three pathways. For those chemicals that appeared in three pathways, EPA gave highest priority to those chemicals appearing in human biological monitoring exposure data. Table 8 presents the draft initial list of nine HPV/pesticide inert chemicals to undergo screening in the EDSP. Because this list of HPV/pesticide inert chemicals was selected on the basis of exposure potential only, it should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. **Table 8.—High Production Volume Pesticide Inerts** Chemical Name CAS Number Total Pathways Human Eco Water Air Chemicals in 4 Pathways Acetone 67641 4 x x x x Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 4 x x x x Dibutyl phthalate 84742 4 x x x x Diethyl phthalate 84662 4 x x x x Dimethyl phthalate 131113 4 x x x x Di-sec-octyl phthalate 117817 4 x x x x Methyl ethyl ketone 78933 4 x x x x Toluene 108883 4 x x x x Chemical in 3 Pathways Isophorone 78591 3 x x x G. Chemical Substances Deferred from Screening EPA previously indicated that the following types of chemical substances may be deferred from the initial list of chemicals to undergo screening: • Certain FIFRA List 4 pesticide inerts (i.e., List 4 inerts are described as “Inerts of minimal concern”). • Most polymers with number average molecular weight greater than 1,000 daltons. • Strong mineral acids and bases. • Chemicals that are being used as a “positive controls” to validate the screening assays. EPA has examined the 73 chemicals identified by the selection process in light of the criteria for deferral. None of the chemicals selected for initial screening using the approach described in this **Federal Register** notice were categorized as List 4 inerts, high molecular weight polymers, or strong mineral acids or bases. Several have been used as “positive controls” in the validation of individual assays by the EDSP. However, none of the chemicals identified as EDSP “positive controls” on the draft chemical lists were used in a full battery of Tier 1 screening assays. As a result, none of the chemicals qualify as “positive controls” for Tier 1 screening, as a whole. Use of these chemicals in the validation of individual assays by the EDSP does not mean that these chemicals should be characterized as endocrine disruptors at this time. EPA intends to use the results of the battery of Tier 1 assays on this initial list to make a “weight of the evidence” determination about a chemical's potential to interact with the endocrine system. Excluding “positive controls” used in individual assays from the list of chemicals for initial Tier 1 screening would mean that EPA would not have data for the remainder of the assays in the Tier 1 battery and would not be able to evaluate these chemicals' potential interaction with the endocrine system in the same manner as for all other chemicals, and would not be able to properly evaluate whether these chemicals should proceed to Tier 2 testing. Thus, these chemicals were retained on the list of 73 chemicals for initial screening. H. Bypassing Tier 1 Screening As indicated in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice, any company subject to a testing requirement under Tier 1 may assert (supported by appropriate data) during the comment period for the draft list that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor and that the Tier 1 EDSP screening is unnecessary. EPA does not intend to permit chemicals on this list to bypass Tier 1 screening and move directly to Tier 2 testing without appropriate data to support such an action. I. Integration of the Pesticide Active Ingredients and High Production Volume/Inerts Lists Table 9 presents an alphabetized draft list of the 73 pesticide active ingredients and HPV/pesticide inert chemicals for screening in the EDSP. Because this list of chemicals was selected on the basis of exposure potential only, it should neither be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors nor characterized as such. **Table 9.—Draft List of Chemicals for Tier 1 Screening in the EDSP** Chemical Name CAS Number Pesticide Active Ingredient HPV/Inert 2,4-D 94757 x 4,7-Methano-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, 2-(2-ethylhexyl)-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro- 113484 x Abamectin 71751412 x Acephate 30560191 x Acetone 67641 x Aldicarb 116063 x Allethrin 584792 x Atrazine 1912249 x Azinphos-Methyl 86500 x Benfluralin 1861401 x Bifenthrin 82657043 x Butyl benzyl phthalate 85687 x Captan 133062 x Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester 759944 x Carbaryl 63252 x Carbofuran 1563662 x Chlorothalonil 1897456 x Chlorpyrifos 2921882 x Cyfluthrin 68359375 x Cypermethrin 52315078 x DCPA (or chlorthal-dimethyl) 1861321 x Diazinon 333415 x Dibutyl phthalate 84742 x Dichlobenil 1194656 x Dichlorvos 62737 x Dicofol 115322 x Diethyl phthalate 84662 x Dimethoate 60515 x Dimethyl phthalate 131113 x Di-sec-octyl phthalate 117817 x Disulfoton 298044 x Endosulfan 115297 x Esfenvalerate 66230044 x Ethoprop 13194484 x Fenbutatin oxide 13356086 x Fenvalerate 51630581 x Flutolanil 66332965 x Folpet 133073 x Gardona (cis-isomer) 22248799 x Glyphosate 1071836 x Imidacloprid 138261413 x Iprodione 36734197 x Isophorone 78591 x Linuron 330552 x Malathion 121755 x Metalaxyl 57837191 x Methamidophos 10265926 x Methidathion 950378 x Methiocarb 2032657 x Methomyl 16752775 x Methyl ethyl ketone 78933 x Methyl parathion 298000 x Metolachlor 51218452 x Metribuzin 21087649 x Myclobutanil 88671890 x Norflurazon 27314132 x o-Phenylphenol 90437 x Oxamyl 23135220 x Permethrin 52645531 x Phosmet 732116 x Piperonyl butoxide 51036 x Propachlor 1918167 x Propargite 2312358 x Propiconazole 60207901 x Propyzamide 23950585 x Pyridine, 2-(1-methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy)- 95737681 x Quintozene 82688 x Resmethrin 10453868 x Simazine 122349 x Tebuconazole 107534963 x Toluene 108883 x Triadimefon 43121433 x Trifluralin 1582098 x V. Other Related Future Actions EPA anticipates that it may, in the future, modify its approach to selecting chemicals for screening. Information and factors that EPA may consider in selecting chemicals could include: Public input; the results of testing chemicals on the initial list; management considerations to increase the integration of screening with other regulatory activities; implementation considerations flowing from a decision to extend screening to additional categories of chemicals (e.g., nonpesticide chemical substances); and the availability of new priority-setting tools (e.g., High Throughput Pre-Screening
(HTPS)or Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship
(QSAR)models). As discussed in Unit III., EPA also expects to address other aspects of the EDSP such as the information collection request, the administrative procedures EPA will use to require testing, the validated tests and battery that will be included in the EDSP, and the timeframe for requiring the testing and receiving the data in subsequent notices published in the **Federal Register** . The Agency intends to conduct a review of the data received from Tier 1 screening both to evaluate individual chemicals and to evaluate whether the EDSP could be improved or optimized, and if so, how. In addition to its own scientists, the Agency will ask an independent expert panel, such as one under the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)/Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB)to review the results from the Tier 1 screening of the initial group of chemicals. The review may identify methodological issues encountered when this larger set of chemicals are tested by laboratories not involved in the assay validation effort that may lead to further refinements in the protocols for the Tier 1 assays to improve their performance for a wider range of chemicals. The evaluation may also identify interpretive issues, such as a determination that two assays in the screening battery adequately measures the same effect. Other information from the review process may help identify potential issues or areas for improvement, such as whether there is sufficient laboratory capacity or difficulties performing tests in strict adherence with the validated protocols, whether there are issues with the industry's ability to test the identified chemicals, or whether there are any procedural changes that would improve the overall program. VI. References The following is a list of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. These references are available in the docket as identified under ADDRESSES , which is the same docket that was used for the final chemical selection approach described in the September 2005 **Federal Register** notice. In addition, some documents referenced are only available in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066, which is the docket used for the proposed chemical selection approach described in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79611) (FRL-7286-6). These dockets are cross referenced, but to simplify identifying the specific documents that can be found only in docket ID number OPPT-2002-0066, those references include the appropriate document ID number. 1. U.S. EPA. Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee Final Report. August 1998. Available at: *http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/edspoverview/finalrpt.htm.* (Ref. 2, Docket ID number OPPT-2002-0066) 2. U.S. EPA. Registration Review Draft Schedule. (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0010). August 2005. 3. U.S. EPA. Non-confidential List of 2002 Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)Inventory Update Rule
(IUR)Chemicals. *http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/tools/data/2002-vol.htm* . 2002. 4. U.S. EPA. Inert (other) Pesticide Ingredients in Pesticide Products - Categorized List of Inert (other) Pesticide Ingredients. *http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/lists.html* . 5. ERG. High Production Volume Pesticide Inert Overlap Chemicals. EPA Contract EP-W-05-014, Work Assignment 1-09. Eastern Research Group, Inc. April 2007. (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0011) 6. U.S. EPA. Data Manipulation Summary for Pesticide Active Ingredients. EPA Contract EP-W-05-014, Work Assignment 3-03. Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 2007. (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0012) 7. U.S. EPA. Data Manipulation Summary for High Production Volume Pesticide Inerts. EPA Contract EP-W-05-014, Work Assignment 3-03. Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 2007. (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0013) 8. U.S. EPA. Compilation of Data Source Summaries Prepared for High Production Volume
(HPV)and Pesticide Inert Chemicals and Pesticide Active Ingredients Data Sources. EPA Contract 68-W-02-024, Task Order #69. Eastern Research Group, Inc. June 2005. (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0005) 9. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Commodity Intake Database (FCID). July 2000. Available at: *http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14514* . 10. U.S. EPA. EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database, A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971-1991 National Summary, EPA 734-12-92-001. September 1992. (Ref. 4, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 11. U.S. Geological Survey. Pesticides in Select Water Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 1999-2000: Summary of Results from a Pilot Monitoring Program. 2001. USGS Open File Report 01-456. (Ref. 5, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 12. Ashley, David L.; Bonin, Michael A.; Cardinall, Frederick L.; McCraw, Joan M.; and Wootan, Joe V. Blood Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)in a Nonoccupationally Exposed U.S. Population and in Groups with Suspected Exposure. Clinical Chemistry
(1994)40: 1401-1404. (Ref. 10, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 13. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. March 2001. (Ref. 11, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. January 2003. (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0007) 15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. July 2005 *http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf* . (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0109-0014) 16. U.S. EPA. Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans in the General U.S. Population: NHATS FY87 Results - Executive Summary. EPA-560/5-91-003. May 1991. (Ref. 12, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 17. Cramer, Paul H.; Stanley, John S.; Bauer, Karin; Ayling, Randy E.; Thornburg, Kelly R.; and Schwemberger, John. Brominated Dioxins and Furans in Human Adipose Tissue: Final Report. EPA-560/5-90-005 (NTIS PB91-103507). April 11, 1990. (Ref. 13, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 18. Cramer, Paul H.; Stanley, John S.; and Thornburg, Kelly R. Mass Spectral Confirmation of Chlorinated and Brominated Diphenylethers in Human Adipose Tissues: Final Report. EPA-560/5-90-012 (NTIS PB91-159699). June 15, 1990. (Ref. 14, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 19. Mack, Gregory A. and Mohadjer, Leyla. Baseline Estimates and Time Trends for Beta-benzene hexachloride, Hexachlorobenzene, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Human Adipose Tissue 1970-1983. EPA-560/5-85-025. September 30, 1985. (Ref. 15, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 20. Onstot, J.D.; Ayling, R.E.; and Stanley, J.S. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue: Volume I - Technical Approach. EPA-560/5-87-002A (NTIS PB88-100367). May 1987. (Ref. 16, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 21. Onstot, J.D.; Ayling, R.E.; and Stanley, J.S. Characterization of HRGC/MS Unidentified Peaks from the Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue: Volume II - Appendices. EPA-560/5-87-002B (NTIS PB88-100375). May 1987. (Ref. 17, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 22. Onstot, J.D. and Stanley, J.S. Identification of SARA Compounds in Adipose Tissue. EPA-260/5-89-003 (NTIS PB90-132564). August 1989. (Ref. 18, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 23. Orban, John E.; Stanley, John S.; Schwemberger, John G.; and Remmers, Janet C. Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Adipose Tissue of the General U.S. Population and Selected Subpopulations. American Journal of Public Health.
(1994)84: 439-445. (Ref. 19, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 24. U.S. EPA. Semivolatile Organic Compounds in the General U.S. Population: NHATS FY86 Results - Volume I. EPA-747-R-94-001. July 1994. (Ref. 20, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 25. Stanley, John S. Broad Scan Analysis of the FY82 National Human Adipose Tissue Survey Specimens: Volume I - Executive Summary. EPA-560/5-86-035 (NTIS PB87-177218). December 1986. (Ref. 21, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 26. Stanley, John S. Broad Scan Analysis of the FY82 National Human Adipose Tissue Survey Specimens: Volume II - Volatile Organic Compounds. EPA-560/5-86-036 (NTIS PB87-177226). December 1986. (Ref. 22, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 27. Stanley, John S. Broad Scan Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue: Volume III - Semivolatile Organic Compounds: Final Report. EPA-560/5-86-037 (NTIS PB87-180519). December 1986. (Ref. 23, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 28. Stanley, John S. Broad Scan Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue: Volume IV - Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs): Final Report. EPA-560/5-86-038 (NTIS PB87-177234). December 1986. (Ref. 24, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 29. Stanley, John S. and Stockton, Rodney A. Broad Scan Analysis of the FY82 National Human Adipose Tissue Survey Specimens: Volume V - Trace Elements. EPA-560/5-86-039 (NTIS PB87-180527). December 1986. (Ref. 25, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 30. U.S. EPA. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM)Study: Elizabeth and Bayonne, New Jersey, Devils Lake, North Dakota, and Greensboro, North Carolina: Volume II. Part 2. EPA-600/6-87/002b (NTIS PB88-100078). June 1987. (Ref. 26, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 31. U.S. EPA. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM)Study: Selected Communities in Northern and Southern California: Volume III. EPA-600/6-87/002c (NTIS PB88-100086). June 1987. (Ref. 27, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 32. Wallace, Lance. Project Summary: The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology
(TEAM)Study. EPA/600/S6-87/002. September 1987. (Ref. 28, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 33. Thomas, Kent W.; Pelizzari, Edo D.; and Berry, Maurice R. Population-based dietary intakes and tap water concentrations for selected elements in EPA Region V National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS). Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
(1999)9: 402-413. (Ref. 29, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 34. Clayton, C.A.; Pelizzari, E.D.; Whitmore, R.W.; Perritt, R.L.; and J.J. Quackenboss. National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): distributions and associations of lead, arsenic and volatile organic compounds in EPA Region 5. Journal of Exposure and Environmental Epidemiology.
(1999)9: 381-392. (Ref. 30, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 35. O'Rourke, Mary Kay; Van de Water, Peter K.; Jin, Shan; Rogan, Seumas P.; Weiss, Aaron D.; Gordon, Sydney M.; Moschandreas, Demetrios M.; and Lebowitz, Michael D. Evaluations of primary metals from NHEXAS Arizona: distributions and preliminary exposures. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
(1999)9: 435-445. (Ref. 31, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 36. Robertson, Gary L.; Lebowitz, Michael D.; O'Rourke, Mary Kay; Gordon, Sydney; and Moschandreas, Demetrios. The National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) study in Arizona - introduction and preliminary results. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
(1999)9: 427-434. (Ref. 32, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 37. Brown, S.K.; Sim, M.R.; Abramson, M.J.; and Gray, C.N. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Air - A Review. Indoor Air.
(1994)4: 123-124. (Ref. 33, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 38. Daisey, J.M.; Hodgson, A.T.; Fisk, W.J.; Mendell, M.J.; and Brinke, J. Ten. Volatile Organic Compounds In Twelve California Office Buildings: Classes, Concentrations and Sources. Atmospheric Environment.
(1994)28: 3557-3562. (Ref. 34, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 39. Kelly, Thomas J.; Mukund, R.; Spicer, Chester W.; and Pollack, Albert J. Concentrations and Transformations of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol.
(1994)28: 378A-387A. (Ref. 35, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 40. Immerman, Frederick W. and Schaum, John L. Final Report of the Nonoccupational Pesticide Exposure Study (NOPES). EPA/600/3-90/003 (NTIS PB90-152224). January 1990. (Ref. 36, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 41. Samfield, Max M. Indoor Air Quality Data Base for Organic Compounds. EPA-600-R-92-025 (NTIS PB92-158468). February 1992. (Ref. 37, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 42. Shah, Jitendra J. and Singh, Hanwant B. Distribution of Volatile Organic Chemicals in Outdoor and Indoor Air. A National VOCs Data Base. Environ. Sci. Technol.
(1988)22: 1381-1388. (Ref. 38, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 43. Sheldon, L.; Clayton, A.; Jones, B.; Keever, J.; Perritt, R.; Smith, D.; Whitaker, D.; and Whitmore, R. Indoor Pollutant Concentrations and Exposures: Final Report. California Air Resources Board, Contract A833-156. January 1992. (Ref. 39, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 44. Shields, Helen C.; Fleischer, Daniel M.; and Weschler, Charles J. Comparisons among VOCs Measured in Three Types of U.S. Commercial Buildings with Different Occupant Densities. Indoor Air.
(1996)6: 2-17. (Ref. 40, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) 45. Gordon, Sydney M.; Callahan, Patrick J.; Nishioka, Marcia G.; Brinkman, Marielle C.; O'Rourke, Mary Kay; Lebowitz, Michael D.; and Moschandreas, Demetrios J. Residential Environmental Measurements in the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Pilot Study in Arizona: Preliminary Results for Pesticides and VOCs. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
(1999)9: 546-470. (Ref. 41, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0066) List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Endocrine disruptors, Pesticides. Dated: May 24, 2007. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E7-11711 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket# EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0473; FRL-8328-1] Holmes Scrap Yard Site; East Spencer, Rowan County, NC; Notice of Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of settlement. SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response concerning the Holmes Scrap Yard Site located in East Spencer, Rowan County, North Carolina. DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until July 18, 2007. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0473 or Site name Holmes Scrap Yard Superfund Site by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: Batchelor.Paula@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 404/562-8842/Attn Paula V. Batchelor. *Mail:* Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA Region 4, SD-SEIMB, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. “In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.” *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0473. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Batchelor at 404/562-8887. Dated: June 1, 2007. Rosalind H. Brown, Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E7-11688 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Instructions for Implementing Executive Order 13423 AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality. ACTION: Notice of availability of E.O. 13423 implementing instructions. SUMMARY: On January 24, 2007, President Bush signed Executive Order 12343, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” Section 4(b) of the E.O. authorizes the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), after consultation with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and the agencies, to issue instructions to implement the E.O. CEQ issued the first set of implementing instructions on March 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Pinero, Federal Environmental Executive, 202-456-6224. (Authority: E.O. 12343, 72 FR 3917) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E.O. 13423 sets goals in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water consumption intensity, acquisition, management of toxic and hazardous chemicals, waste prevention, solid waste diversion and recycling, sustainable buildings, vehicle fleet management, and electronics stewardship. In addition, the E.O. reinforces the requirement for more widespread use of environmental management systems as the framework in which to manage and continually improve these sustainable practices. Section 4(b) of the E.O. authorizes the CEQ Chairman, after consultation with OMB and the agencies, to issue instructions to implement the E.O. CEQ issued the first set of implementing instructions on March 30, 2007. These instructions provide additional detail and direction to agencies they work to fulfill the goals and requirements of the E.O. They do not create new requirements beyond the scope of the E.O., however. These instructions should be considered mandatory, and agencies are expected to implement them as part of complying with the E.O. The E.O. implementing instructions can be found on the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive's Web site at *http://www.ofee.gov* or the FedCenter Web site at *http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/compliance/.* Dated: June 12, 2007. James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality. [FR Doc. E7-11715 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice 99] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”) is seeking approval of the proposed information collection described below. Ex-Im Bank provides insurance and guarantees for the financing of exports of goods and services. This collection allows our customers the convenience of online claim filing in connection with a defaulted export transaction. Its use expedites claim filing and provides for simpler, more efficient processing of insurance, guarantee, and working capital claims. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, Ex-IM Bank invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is soliciting comments from the public concerning the proposed collection of information to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(3)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before August 17, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all comments and requests for information to Terry M. Faith, Export-Import Bank of the U.S., 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571,
(202)565-3607 or
(800)565-3946, x 3607, or *Terry.M.Faith@exim.gov.* *Titles and Form Numbers:* Export-Import Bank for the United States Electronic Claim Filing System: Insurance: EIB 07-01A, Medium-Term Bank Guarantee: EIB 07-01B, and Working Capital Guarantee: EIB 07-01C. *OMB Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Need and Use:* The proposed information collection provides Ex-Im Bank with information necessary to process the filing of a claim under Ex-IM Bank's Multi-buyer Insurance Policy, Medium Term Guarantee and Working Capital Guarantee programs. The information collection enables claimants to file a claim online, thereby allowing for a simpler, more efficient process. *Affected Public:* Insured parties and brokers. EIB 07-01A EIB 07-01B EIB 07-01C Estimated Annual Respondents 32 10 10 Estimated Time Per Respondent 1 Hr 1 Hr 1 1/2 Hrs. Estimated Annual Burden 32 Hrs 10 Hrs 15 Hrs. *Frequency of Response:* One form per claim. Dated: June 11, 2007. Solomon Bush, Agency Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 07-2977 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 17
10 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 594
  • 72 FR 17
  • 16 USC 842o(d)(3)
  • 5 CFR 1320.8
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 18 CFR 35
  • 43 CFR 1610
  • 40 CFR 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 385.211
C.F.R.§ 154.210
C.F.R.§ 35.7
U.S.C.§ 824o
C.F.R.§ 39.5
C.F.R.§ 39.13
C.F.R.§ 385.214
U.S.C.§ 3502
U.S.C.§ 3507
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-58
Stat.119 Stat. 594
Fed. Reg.72 FR 17
Cites 27 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.