12832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

at the scoping meetings, or may be 

viewed on the web at http:// 

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Follow the directions for accessing 

information in paragraph m. Based on 

all oral and written comments, a 

Revised Scoping Document may be 

issued. A Revised Scoping Document 

may include additional issues, 

identified through the scoping process. 

Environmental Site Review 

The Applicant and FERC staff will 

conduct a project Environmental Site 

Review beginning at 9 a.m. on March 

28, 2012. All interested individuals, 

organizations, and agencies are invited 

to attend. All participants should meet 

at the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam in 

Gallipolis, Ohio (Ohio side). All 

participants are responsible for their 

own transportation to the site. Anyone 

with questions about the Environmental 

Site Review should contact Philip E. 

Meier at 614–540–0913 or Gaylord 

Hoisington at 202–502–6032. 

Objectives 

At the scoping meetings, the staff will: 

(1) Summarize the environmental issues 

tentatively identified for analysis in the 

EA; (2) solicit from the meeting 

participants all available information, 

especially quantifiable data, on the 

resources at issue; (3) encourage 

statements from experts and the public 

on issues that should be analyzed in the 

EA, including viewpoints in opposition 

to, or in support of, the staff’s 

preliminary views; (4) determine the 

resource issues to be addressed in the 

EA; and (5) identify those issues that 

require a detailed analysis, as well as 

those issues that do not require a 

detailed analysis. 

Procedures 

The meetings are recorded by a 

stenographer and become part of the 

formal record of the Commission 

proceeding on the project. 

Individuals, organizations, and 

agencies with environmental expertise 

and concerns are encouraged to attend 

the meetings and to assist the staff in 

defining and clarifying the issues to be 

addressed in the EA. 

Dated: February 27, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5106 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. AD12–8–000] 

Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics; 

Commission Staff Request Comments 

on Performance Metrics for Regions 

Outside of RTOs and ISOs 

In September 2008, the United States 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) issued a report titled ‘‘Electricity 

Restructuring: FERC Could Take 

Additional Steps to Analyze Regional 

Transmission Organizations’ Benefits 

and Performance,’’ GAO–08–987. This 

report recommended that the Chairman 

of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission or FERC), 

among other actions, work with regional 

transmission organizations (RTO), 

Independent System Operators (ISO), 

stakeholders and other experts to 

develop standardized measures that 

track the performance of RTO/ISO 

operations and markets and report the 

performance results to Congress and the 

public annually, while also providing 

interpretation of (1) what the measures 

and reported performance communicate 

about the benefits of RTOs and, where 

appropriate, (2) changes that need to be 

made to address any performance 

concerns. Consistent with the goals 

outlined in GAO’s report, the 

Commission’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal 

Years 2009–2014 outlined a multi-year 

process for developing and 

implementing a common set of 

performance measures for markets both 

within and outside of ISOs/RTOs. 

As recommended by GAO, 

Commission staff worked with 

representatives from all the 

jurisdictional ISOs/RTOs to develop a 

set of performance metrics for ISOs and 

RTOs. Commission staff and ISO/RTO 

representatives met with interested 

stakeholders to solicit their perspectives 

and comments on the proposed 

performance metrics. Commission staff 

then released the proposed metrics for 

public comment in Docket No. AD10–5– 

000. In October 2010, Commission staff 

issued a staff report addressing the 

comments received and recommending 

a final list of metrics for ISOs and RTOs. 

In December 2010, the ISOs and RTOs 

submitted information for the 2005– 

2009 period addressing the final metrics 

developed by Commission staff. This 

information, along with a staff report 

and analysis of performance as 

measured by the metrics, was included 

in a report sent to Congress in April 

2011. The ISOs and RTOs subsequently 

submitted a report providing data for 

the 2006–2010 period. 

Now, Commission staff has started the 

process of developing metrics to 

measure performance in regions outside 

of ISOs and RTOs. Consistent with the 

process used in developing metrics for 

ISO/RTO markets, Commission staff has 

worked with the Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI) and its members to 

develop a set of performance metrics for 

regions outside of ISOs and RTOs. 

Commission staff, along with EEI and its 

members, met with interested 

stakeholders to solicit their perspectives 

and comments on the proposed 

performance metrics. These metrics are 

based on the metrics previously selected 

in Docket No. AD10–5, but have been 

tailored to fit markets outside of ISOs 

and RTOs. We expect that those entities 

that decide to provide information in 

response to the final metrics developed 

in this proceeding will provide data and 

explain performance trends in a manner 

consistent with the responses provided 

by the ISOs and RTOs in Docket No. 

AD10–5. 

Commission staff requests comments 

on whether the proposed performance 

metrics (attached) will effectively track 

the performance of markets outside of 

ISOs and RTOs. Comments must be 

filed on or before May 1, 2012. Reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

May 16, 2012. 

Addresses: Parties may submit 

comments, identified by Docket No. 

AD12–08–000, by one of the following 

methods. 

Agency Web site: http://www.ferc. 

gov/. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments via the eFiling 

link found under the ‘‘Documents and 

Filing’’ tab. 

Mail: Those unable to file comments 

electronically may mail or hand-deliver 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Jeffrey Hitchings, Office of Energy 

Market Regulation, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 

(202) 502–6042, Email: 

jeffrey.hitchings@ferc.gov or Stephen J. 

Hug, Office of the General Counsel— 

Energy Markets, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 

(202) 502–8009, Email: 

stephen.hug@ferc.gov. 

Information Collection Statement 

The following collection of 

information contained in these 

proposed metrics is subject to review by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12833 

1 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006). The Paperwork 

Reduction Act requires OMB approval of certain 

information collection activities when these 

activities apply to 10 or more persons. Because it 

is estimated that 11 entities will respond to this 

collection the Commission is requesting approval 

from OMB. 

2 5 CFR part 1320 (2011). 

3See http://bls.gov/oes/current/ 

naics4_221100.htm#(3). 

4See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

ecec.nr0.htm. 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under section 3507 of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.1

OMB’s regulations require approval of 

certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency 

actions.2 The Commission solicits 

comments on the Commission’s need for 

this information, whether the 

information will have practical utility, 

the accuracy of the burden estimates, 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be collected 

or retained, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondents’ burden, 

including the use of automated 

information techniques. 

The proposed collection of 

information requires those public 

utilities outside of ISOs and RTOs that 

choose to participate to provide 

information responding to the attached 

metrics on a periodic basis. This 

includes the submission of price data 

and information relating to reliability, 

transmission planning, requests for 

service, and system capacity. The 

information submitted by participating 

utilities would be used to help develop 

a common set of metrics for both ISO/ 

RTO markets and non-RTO/ISO 

markets, and for evaluating market 

performance thereafter. 

Burden Estimate: The additional 

estimated public reporting burdens for 

the proposed reporting requirements in 

this rule are as follows. 

FERC–922 

requirements 

Number of 

respondents 

annually 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average burden 

hours per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

(1) (2) (3) (1) × (2) × (3) 

Metrics Data Collection .................................................................... 11 1 80 880 

Write Performance Analysis ............................................................ 11 1 60 660 

Total .......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,540 

We estimate that it will take, on 

average, one technical analyst two 

weeks to collect the data to respond to 

the metrics. We also estimate that it will 

take one technical analyst one week to 

write a report responding to the metrics 

and it will take one manager 

approximately 20 hours to review the 

report. 

Cost to Comply: The Commission has 

projected the cost of compliance to be 

$106,920. 

Technical Expertise = $89,760 (880 

hours data collection + 440 hours report 

completion @ $68 per hour). 

Management Review = $17,160 (220 

hours report review @ $78 per hour). 

Cost per hour figures are calculated 

using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

data.3 The technical expertise category 

factors in the median wage for an 

engineer, analyst, attorney and 

economist. The management category 

factors in the median wage for general 

and operations managers. Based on BLS 

data,4 both cost figures have been 

adjusted to include benefits (benefits 

represent 29.5% of the total hourly 

figure). 

Title: FERC–922, Non-RTO/ISO 

Performance Metrics. 

Action: Proposed Collection. 

OMB Control No. TBD. 

Internal Review: The Commission has 

reviewed the proposed metrics and has 

determined that the metrics and data 

gathered thereunder are necessary. 

These requirements conform to the 

Commission’s need 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 collection requirements. 

Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director], 

email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: 

(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873. 

Comments on the collections of 

information and the associated burden 

estimates in this proceeding should be 

sent to the Commission in this docket 

and 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]. For security 

reasons, comments to OMB should be 

submitted by email to: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Comments submitted to OMB should 

include Docket Number AD12–08–000 

and FERC–922. 

Dated: February 23, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

Attachment 

PROPOSED PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR NON-ISO/RTO REGIONS

[Based on ISO/RTO metrics from Docket No. AD10–5–000] 

Performance metric Specific metric(s) 

Reliability 

A. National or Regional Reliability 

Standards Compliance.

1. References to which Electricity Reliability Organization (ERO) and Regional Reliability Organization 

(RRO) standards are applicable. 

2. Number of violations self-reported and made public by NERC/FERC. 

3. Number of violations identified and made public as RRO or ERO audit findings. 

4. Total number of violations made public by NERC/FERC. 

5. Severity level of each violation made public by NERC/FERC. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

PROPOSED PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR NON-ISO/RTO REGIONS—Continued 

[Based on ISO/RTO metrics from Docket No. AD10–5–000] 

Performance metric Specific metric(s) 

6. Compliance with operating reserve standards. 

7. Unserved energy (or load shedding) caused by violations. Additional detail will be provided on (1) number of events; (2) duration of the events; (3) whether the events occurred during on/off-peak hours; and 

(4) additional information on equipment types affected and kV of lines affected. 

Items 2–7: Track the ISO/RTO definition: ‘‘This metric is a quantification of all NERC and RRO Reliability 

Standards violations that have been identified during an audit or as a result of an ISO/RTO self-report 

and have been published as part of that process.’’ 

Non-ISO/RTO utilities should limit reporting to the same eight functional areas used by the ISO/RTOs: 

1. Balancing Authority. 

2. Interchange Authority. 

3. Planning Authority. 

4. Reliability Coordinator. 

5. Resource Planner. 

6. Transmission Operator. 

7. Transmission Planner. 

8. Transmission Service Provider. 

B. Dispatch Reliability ..................... 1. Balance Authority Ace Limit (BAAL) OR// CPS1 and CPS2. 

2. Number of events of transmission load reliefs (of severity level 3 or higher) called by the incumbent 

transmission provider or unscheduled flows. 

• WECC entities will report events under the WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Procedure (equivalent to the NERC TLR Level three). 

3. Energy Management System (EMS) availability. 

C. Operational Planning—Load 

Forecast Accuracy.

Actual peak load as a percentage variance from forecasted peak load as reported in OASIS. 

D. Wind Forecasting Accuracy ....... Actual wind availability compared to forecasted wind availability. 

E. Unscheduled Flows .................... Difference between net actual interchange (actual measured power flow in real time) and the net scheduled interchange in megawatt hours. 

• Reported in Form 714. 

F. Transmission Outage Coordination.Report information posted on OASIS (percentage of outages, planned and unplanned, with less than 2 

days notice). 

G. Long-Term Reliability Planning— 

Transmission.

1. Dollar amount of facilities approved to be constructed for reliability purposes. 

2. Percentage of approved construction completed. 

3. Performance of planning process related to: 

a. Requests for and number of completed reliability studies. 

b. Narrative detailing economic studies process. 

Discussion of stakeholder process and identification of stakeholder groups participating. 

H. Long-Term Reliability Planning— 

Resources.

1. Processing time for generation interconnection requests. 

2. Planned reserve margins. 

3. Explanation of the nature and characteristics of demand response programs and how they are used in 

system planning. 

I. Infrastructure Investment—Interconnection and Transmission 

Process Metrics.

1. Number of requests. 

2. Number of studies completed. 

3–5. Total cost and types of studies completed (e.g., feasibility study, system impact study and facility 

study). 

6. Number of transmission access denials/transmission service requests (TSRs) denied. 

J. Special Protection Systems ........ 1. Number of special protection systems. 

2. Percentage of special protection systems that responded as designed when activated. 

• Applicable pool of special protection systems should be based on how the reporting entity’s Regional Entity defines ‘‘special protection systems.’’ 

3. Number of unintended activations. 

System Operations Measures 

A. Demand Response ..................... Comprehensive explanation of the nature of utility demand response programs implemented for load management as well as in compliance with state requirements. 

B. System Lambda ......................... System Lambda (on marginal unit). 

• Proposed System Lambda metric would not apply to utilities where the marginal price is typically set 

by hydro units. 

• System lambda data will be based on Form 714 information. 

C. Congestion Management ........... Congestion analysis per Order No. 890. 

D. Resource Availability .................. System forced outage rate as measured over 12 months. 

E. Transmission System Availability Interrupted load megawatt hours as a percentage of load served. 

F. Fuel Diversity .............................. Fuel diversity in terms of energy, installed capacity and actual production. 

G. Clean Energy ............................. 1. Clean Energy megawatt hours, by resource type, as a percentage of total energy. 

2. Clean Energy megawatts, by resource type, as a percentage of total capacity. 

Organizational Effectiveness 

Not applicable to non-RTO entities 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12835 

1 20 FERC ¶ 62,512, Order Granting Exemption 

From Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of 

5 Megawatts or Less. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5004 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RM01–5–000] 

Electronic Tariff Filings; Notice of 

Procedures for Public Utilities Seeking 

To Extend the Date for Commission 

Action on Statutory Filings 

This is to provide notice that 

Commission staff has posted (at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/commorder/extend-date.pdf) procedures that 

public utilities filing under Part 35 must 

follow if they seek to extend the date by 

which the Commission must act on a 

rate case or other statutory filing. 

Dated: February 23, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5003 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 3287–006] 

American Land Company, LLC, 

Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice 

of Transfer of Exemption 

1. By letter filed February 14, 2012, 

American Land Company, LLC 

informed the Commission that its 

exemption from licensing for the 

Burnshire Dam Project No. 3287, 

originally issued September 22, 1982,1

has been transferred to Burnshire 

Hydroelectric, LLC. The project is 

located on the North Fork, Shenandoah 

River in Shenandoah County, Virginia. 

The transfer of an exemption does not 

require Commission approval. 

2. Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC, 

located at 480 N Pifer Road, Star 

Tannery, Virginia 22654 is now the 

exemptee of the Burnshire Dam Project 

No. 3287. 

Dated: February 27, 2012. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5107 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9001–8] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements 

Filed 02/20/2012 Through 02/24/2012 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.

gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20120043, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, 

On Top Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

Project, To Disclose the 

Environmental Effects of a Federal 

Proposal on National Forest System 

(NFS) Land, Plumas National Forest, 

Feather River Ranger District, Plumas, 

Butte Counties, CA, Comment Period 

Ends: 04/16/2012, Contact: Carol 

Spinos, 530–534–6500; 

EIS No. 20120044, Final EIS, BR, WA, 

PROGRAMMATIC—Yakima River 

Basin Integrated Water Resource 

Management Plan, To Meet the Water 

Supply and Ecosystem Restoration 

Needs, Benton, Kittitas, Klickitat and 

Yakima Counties, WA, Review Period 

Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact: Candace 

McKinley, 509–575–5848 ext. 613; 

EIS No. 20120045, Final EIS, USACE, 

FL, St. Lucie County South Beach and 

Dune Restoration Project, To Restore 

Recreational Beach, Restore Beach 

and Habitat, and Reduce Storm 

Damage Due to Beach Erosion, St. 

Lucie County, FL, Review Period 

Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact: Garett 

Lipps, 561–472–3519; 

EIS No. 20120046, Draft EIS, NPS, VI, 

Buck Island Reef National Monument 

General Management Plan, 

Implementation, St. Croix, Virgin 

Islands, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/ 

2012, Contact: Joel A. Tutein, 340– 

773–1460; 

EIS No. 20120047, Draft EIS, BIA, WA, 

West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use 

Development Project, Approval of 

Gaming Development and 

Management, Spokane Tribe of 

Indians, Spokane County, WA, 

Comment Period Ends: 04/16/2012, 

Contact: Dr. B.J. Howerton, 503–231– 

6749; 

EIS No. 20120048, Draft EIS, NPS, WI, 

Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains 

General Management Plan, 

Implementation, Ice Age National 

Scenic Trail, Dane County, WI, 

Comment Period Ends: 04/30/2012, 

Contact: Pam Shuler, 608–441–5610; 

EIS No. 20120049, Final EIS, GSA, DC, 

Department of Homeland Security 

Headquarters Consolidation at St. 

Elizabeth’s Master Plan 

Amendment—East Campus North 

Parcel, St. Elizabeth’s Campus in 

Southeast Washington, DC, Review 

Period Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact: 

Denise Decker, 202–538–5643; 

EIS No. 20120050, Final Supplement, 

USFS, MT, Grizzly Vegetation and 

Transportation Management Project, 

Updated and Additional Information, 

Proposes Timber Harvest, Prescribed 

Burning, Road Maintenance, and 

Transportation Management Actions, 

Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai 

National Forest, Lincoln County, MT, 

Review Period Ends: 04/02/2012, 

Contact: Leslie McDougall, 406–295– 

4693; 

EIS No. 20120051, Draft EIS, BLM, AK, 

Eastern Interior Resource 

Management Plan, To Provide 

Comprehensive Framework to Guide 

Management of Public Lands, AK, 

Comment Period Ends: 07/30/2012, 

Contact: Jeanie Cole, 907–474–2200; 

EIS No. 20120052, Final EIS, USFS, ID, 

Little Slate Project, Proposes 

Watershed Improvement, Timber 

Harvest, Fuel Treatments, Soil 

Restoration and Access Changes in 

the Little Slate Creek, Salmon River 

Ranger District, Nez Perce National 

Forest, Idaho County, ID, Review 

Period Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact: 

Tammy Harding, 208–935–4263. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20120005, Draft EIS, NRCS, HI, 

WITHDRAWN—South Kona 

Watershed Irrigation System, To 

Provide Supplemental Irrigation 

Water to Farms in the Honomalino/ 

Kapu’a Area, Funding, County of 

Hawaii, HI, Comment Period Ends: 

03/05/2012, Contact: Sharon Sawdey, 

808–541–2600, ext. 125. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 1/20/ 

2012: Officially Withdrawn by the 

Preparing Agency. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5131 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES