65618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 

monitoring and consulting activities 

would be adequate treatment. 

An Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 

U.S.C. 1536) Section 7 consultation was 

completed by BLM during the DOE FEIS 

NEPA process. The Service has issued 

four Biological Opinions for the 

proposed project: (1) May 1993; (2) 

March 1994, which included an analysis 

of potential effects to the desert tortoise 

and its designated critical habitat; (3) 

December 2007, which incorporated 

project realignments and the use of Hframes with perching deterrents within 

desert tortoise critical habitat; and (4) 

June and July 2010, which respectively 

amended the 2007 Biological Opinion to 

incorporate an additional tower design 

(tubular guyed-V tower) with perching 

deterrents, and modifications to include 

additional disturbance of desert tortoise 

habitat due to a minor calculation error. 

Mitigation 

DOE will require Great Basin to 

employ all practicable means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm as a 

result of the proposed action. The loan 

guarantee agreement between DOE and 

Great Basin would require that Great 

Basin implement all project-specific 

environmental protection measures 

specified in the ‘‘Construction, 

Operation, and Maintenance Plan for 

the Southwest Intertie Project 500-kV 

Transmission Line; SWIP—Southern 

Portion; SWIP Central Portion (COM 

Plan),’’ and in the BLM Notice to 

Proceed, issued in August 2010. After 

the DOE loan guarantee is retired, 

enforcement of environmental 

protection will continue through the 

BLM ROW grant provisions for the life 

of the project. 

The NEPA analysis completed in the 

DOE FEIS indicates that SWIP South 

would result in low environmental 

impacts after mitigation measures 

required for BLM’s ROW are 

implemented. The mitigation measures 

are a condition of BLM issuance of the 

ROW that provides Great Basin access to 

construct, operate, and maintain SWIP 

South on BLM land. The BLM 

documents the conditions under which 

Great Basin must operate in the COM 

Plan approved by BLM in 2010. The 

COM Plan incorporates the mitigation 

measures required by the DOE FEIS, the 

2010 Historic Properties Treatment 

Plan, and the 2010 Biological Opinion. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to offer Great Basin 

a conditional commitment for a Federal 

loan guarantee for partial financing of 

SWIP South. This decision is contingent 

on Great Basin satisfying all precedent 

funding obligations, and all other 

contractual, statutory, regulatory, 

environmental compliance, and other 

requirements specified by DOE. 

In reaching this decision, DOE 

reviewed the SWIP NEPA 

documentation and considered the 

potential impacts of the selected 

alternative with implementation of the 

stipulated mitigation measures. 

DOE has prepared this ROD in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 

CFR Parts 1500–1508) for implementing 

NEPA and DOE’s NEPA Implementing 

Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). 

Basis for Decision 

DOE has determined that the potential 

environmental impacts analyzed in the 

DOE FEIS will be minor after 

implementation of the mitigation 

provisions for the SWIP South BLM 

ROW. The mitigation measures will be 

reflected in the DOE Loan Guarantee 

Common Agreement, and will remain in 

the BLM COM Plan for the duration of 

the granted ROW. 

DOE has also determined that 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the Falcon Substation 

Upgrades and the Backup 

Communications System would not be 

adverse or can be characterized as 

minor. DOE has determined that no 

further analysis is required, and 

incorporates by reference the 

environmental analyses conducted on 

these project elements. Further, DOE 

has also considered the Congressional 

direction specified in Section 2003 of 

H.R. 4899, the 2010 Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, Public Law 111– 

212, effective on July 29, 2010 (the 2010 

Supplemental Appropriations Act) in its 

decision to issue this ROD. The 2010 

Supplemental Appropriations Act 

allows DOE to provide or facilitate 

Federal financing for SWIP under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5; 123 Stat. 

115), or the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq.), based on the 

comprehensive reviews and 

consultations performed by BLM under 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 

2010. 

Jonathan M. Silver, 

Executive Director, Loan Programs Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27046 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. IC11–725B–000] 

Commission Information Collection 

Activities (FERC–725B); Comment 

Request; Extension 

October 19, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed information 

collection and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006), (Pub. L. 

104–13), the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission or FERC) is 

soliciting public comment on the 

proposed information collection 

described below. 

DATES: Comments in consideration of 

the collection of information are due 

December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an 

original of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

Comments may be filed either on paper 

or on CD/DVD, and should refer to 

Docket No. IC11–725B–000. Documents 

must be prepared in an acceptable filing 

format and in compliance with 

Commission submission guidelines at 

http://www.ferc.gov/help/submissionguide.asp. eFiling and eSubscription are 

not available for Docket No. IC11–725B– 

000, due to a system issue. 

All comments and FERC issuances 

may be viewed, printed or downloaded 

remotely through FERC’s eLibrary at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp, by searching on Docket No. 

IC11–725B. For user assistance, contact 

FERC Online Support by e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or by phone 

at: (866) 208–3676 (toll-free), or (202) 

502–8659 for TTY. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail 

at DataClearance@FERC.gov, telephone 

at (202) 502–8663, and fax at (202) 273– 

0873. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information collected by the FERC– 

725B, Reliability Standards for Critical 

Infrastructure Protection (OMB Control 

No. 1902–0248), is required to 

implement the statutory provisions of 

section 215 of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). On August 8, 

2005, the Electricity Modernization Act 

of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 65619 

1Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 

109–58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 

(2005), 16 U.S.C. 824o. 2 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3). 

3CIP–002–1, CIP–003–1, CIP–004–1, CIP–005–1, 

CIP–006–1, CIP–007–1, CIP–008–1, and CIP–009–1. 

4 In addition, in accordance with section 

215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission proposed to 

direct NERC to develop modifications to the CIP 

Reliability Standards to address specific concerns 

identified by the Commission. 

5For a description of the CIP Reliability 

Standards, see the Critical Infrastructure Protection 

Section at NERC’s Web site at http://www.nerc.com/ 

page.php?cid=2/20. 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005), was enacted into law.1 EPAct 

2005 added a new section 215 to the 

FPA, requiring a Commission-certified 

Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) 

to develop mandatory and enforceable 

Reliability Standards, which are subject 

to Commission review and approval. 

Once approved, the Reliability 

Standards may be enforced in the 

United States by the ERO subject to 

Commission oversight, or the 

Commission can independently enforce 

Reliability Standards.2

On February 3, 2006, the Commission 

issued Order No. 672, implementing 

section 215 of the FPA. Pursuant to 

Order No. 672, the Commission certified 

one organization, North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), 

as the ERO. The Reliability Standards 

developed by the ERO and approved by 

the Commission apply to users, owners 

and operators of the Bulk-Power 

System, as set forth in each Reliability 

Standard. 

On January 18, 2008, the Commission 

issued order 706, approving eight 

Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) 

Reliability Standards submitted by the 

NERC for Commission approval.3 The 

CIP Reliability Standards require certain 

users, owners, and operators of the 

Bulk-Power System to comply with 

specific requirements to safeguard 

critical cyber assets.4 These standards 

help protect the nation’s Bulk-Power 

System against potential disruptions 

from cyber attacks.5

The eight CIP Reliability Standards 

address the following topics: 

• Critical Cyber Asset Identification. 

• Security Management Controls. 

• Personnel and Training. 

• Electronic Security Perimeters. 

• Physical Security of Critical Cyber 

Assets. 

• Systems Security Management. 

• Incident Reporting and Response 

Planning. 

• Recovery Plans for Critical Cyber 

Assets. 

The CIP Reliability Standards include 

one actual reporting requirement and 

several recordkeeping requirements. 

Specifically, CIP–008–1 requires 

responsible entities to report cyber 

security incidents to the Electricity 

Sector–Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center (ES–ISAC). In addition, 

the eight CIP Reliability Standards 

require responsible entities to develop 

various policies, plans, programs, and 

procedures. For example, each 

responsible entity must develop and 

document a risk-based assessment 

methodology to identify critical assets, 

which is then used to develop a list of 

critical cyber assets (CIP–002–1). A 

responsible entity that identifies any 

critical cyber assets must also 

document: A cyber security policy (CIP– 

003–1); a security awareness program 

(CIP–004–1, Requirement R1); a 

personnel risk assessment program 

(CIP–004–1, Requirement R3); an 

electronic security perimeter and 

processes for control of electronic access 

to all electronic access points to the 

perimeter (CIP–005–1, Requirements R1 

and R2); a physical security plan (CIP– 

006–1); procedures for securing certain 

cyber assets (CIP–007–1); and recovery 

plans for critical cyber assets (CIP–008– 

1). To demonstrate compliance with the 

CIP Reliability Standards, responsible 

entities are required to maintain various 

lists and access logs. All responsible 

entities are required to be auditably 

compliant with the CIP Reliability 

Standards by the end of 2010, including 

all required documentation. 

The CIP Reliability Standards do not 

require a responsible entity to report to 

the Commission, ERO or Regional 

Entities, the various policies, plans, 

programs and procedures. However, a 

showing of the documented policies, 

plans, programs and procedures is 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with the CIP Reliability Standards. 

Action: The Commission is requesting 

a three-year extension of the FERC– 

725B reporting requirements, with no 

changes. 

Burden Statement: The extent of the 

reporting burden is influenced by the 

number of identified critical assets and 

related critical cyber assets pursuant to 

CIP–002. An entity identifying one or 

more critical cyber assets, including 

assets located at remote locations, will 

likely require more resources to 

demonstrate compliance with the CIP 

Reliability Standards compared to an 

entity that identifies no critical assets. 

The Commission has developed 

estimates using data from NERC’s 

compliance registry as well as a 2009 

survey that was conducted by NERC to 

asses the number of entities reporting 

Critical Cyber Assets. 

Data collection No. of 

respondents 6

Average No. 

of responses 

per 

respondent 

Average No. 

of Burden 

hours per 

response 7

Total 

annual 

hours 

(1) (2) (3) (1) × (2) × (3) 

FERC–725B.

Estimate of U.S. Entities that have identified Critical Cyber Assets ............... 345 1 320 110,400 

Estimate of U.S. Entities that have not identified Critical Cyber Assets ......... 1,156 1 8 9,248 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 1,501 ........................ ........................ 119,648 

6The NERC Compliance Registry as of 9/28/2010 indicated that 2,079 entities were registered for NERC’s compliance program. Of these, 

2,057 were identified as being U.S. entities. Staff concluded that of the 2,057 U.S. entities, only 1,501 were registered for at least one CIP related function. According to an April 7, 2009 memo to industry, NERC’s VP and Chief Security officer noted that only 31% of entities responded 

to an earlier survey and reported that they had at least one Critical Asset, and only 23% reported having a Critical Cyber Asset. Staff applied the 

23% reporting to the 1,501 figure to obtain an estimate. 7This figure relates to NERC’s audit schedule which requires NERC to engage in a compliance Audit once every 3 to 5 years. For simplicity, 

staff has divided the total number of hours by 3 to reflect the amount of time annually spent preparing documents. Staff assumed that each CIP 

audit or spot check would require four individuals 6 weeks to prepare and demonstrate compliance with CIP standards for entities that have identified Critical Cyber Assets. Staff estimated that entities that do not have Critical Cyber Assets would still be required to demonstrate compliance 

with CIP–002, which would require one individual approximately three days to execute. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Notices 

8Bureau of Labor Statistics figures were obtained 

from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/ 

naics2_22.htm, and 2009 Billing Rates figure were 

obtained from http:// 

www.marylandlawyerblog.com/2009/07/ 

average_hourly_rate_for_lawyer.html. Legal services 

were based on the national average billing rate 

(contracting out) from the above report and BLS 

hourly earnings (in-house personnel). It is assumed 

that 25% of respondents have in-house legal 

personnel. 

The total estimated annual cost 

burden to respondents is: 

• Entities that have identified Critical 

Assets = 110,400 hours@$96 = 

$10,598,400. 

• Entities that have not identified 

Critical Assets = 9,248 hours@$96 = 

$887,808. 

The hourly rate of $96 is the average 

cost of legal services ($230 per hour), 

technical employees ($40 per hour) and 

administrative support ($18 per hour), 

based on hourly rates from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the 2009 

Billing Rates and Practices Survey 

Report.8

The reporting burden includes the 

total time, effort, or financial resources 

expended to generate, maintain, retain, 

disclose, or provide the information 

including: (1) Reviewing instructions; 

(2) developing, acquiring, installing, and 

utilizing technology and systems for the 

purposes of collecting, validating, 

verifying, processing, maintaining, 

disclosing and providing information; 

(3) adjusting the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; (4) 

training personnel to respond to a 

collection of information; (5) searching 

data sources; (6) completing and 

reviewing the collection of information; 

and (7) transmitting or otherwise 

disclosing the information. 

The estimate of cost for respondents 

is based upon salaries for professional 

and clerical support, as well as direct 

and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs 

include all costs directly attributable to 

providing this information, such as 

administrative costs and the cost for 

information technology. Indirect or 

overhead costs are costs incurred by an 

organization in support of its mission. 

These costs apply to activities which 

benefit the whole organization rather 

than any one particular function or 

activity. 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology 

e.g. permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26988 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. P–12783–003] 

Inglis Hydropower, LLC; Notice of 

Application Ready for Environmental 

Analysis and Soliciting Comments, 

Recommendations, Terms and 

Conditions, and Prescriptions 

October 19, 2010. 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: Original Major 

License. 

b. Project No.: P–12783–003. 

c. Date filed: July 22, 2009. 

d. Applicant: Inglis Hydropower, LLC. 

e. Name of Project: Inglis Hydropower 

Project. 

f. Location: The project would be 

located at the existing Inglis bypass 

channel and spillway on the 

Withlacoochee River, west of Lake 

Rousseau and Inglis Dam, within the 

town of Inglis and Levy, Citrus, and 

Marion counties, Florida. No federal 

lands would be occupied by the 

proposed project. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)—825(r). 

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Dean 

Edwards, P.O. Box 1565, Dover, FL 

33527; Mr. Kevin Edwards, P.O. Box 

143, Mayodan, NC 27027. 

i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Adams at 

(202) 502–8087, or 

jennifer.adams@ferc.gov. 

j. The deadline for filing comments, 

recommendations, terms and 

conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days 

from the issuance of this notice and 

reply comments are due 105 days from 

the issuance date of this notice. 

All documents may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or tollfree at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing, documents may also be 

paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 

original and seven copies to: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

require all intervenors filing documents 

with the Commission to serve a copy of 

that document on each person on the 

official service list for the project. 

Further, if an intervenor files comments 

or documents with the Commission 

relating to the merits of an issue that 

may affect the responsibilities of a 

particular resource agency, they must 

also serve a copy of the document on 

that resource agency. 

k. This application has been accepted 

and is ready for environmental analysis 

at this time. 

l. The proposed 2.0-megawatt Inglis 

Hydropower Project would operate 

using flows released by the Southwest 

Water Management District from Lake 

Rousseau which is typically operated to 

maintain the water surface elevation of 

Lake Rousseau at 27.5 feet mean sea 

level. The proposed project would 

consist of: (1) A 45-foot-long, 100-footwide intake conveying water from the 

bypass channel located downstream of 

Lake Rousseau; (2) a 130-foot-long 

penstock consisting of two 14-foot by 

14-foot reinforced concrete conduits; (3) 

a 60-foot-long, 80-foot-wide, 30-foothigh concrete powerhouse containing 

three vertical shaft turbines, two 0.8 

megawatt (MW) turbines and one 0.4 

MW turbine for a total installed capacity 

of 2.0 MW; (4) a 100-foot-long concrete 

discharge channel; (5) a new substation 

adjacent to the powerhouse; (6) a 120- 

foot-long, 24.5-kilovolt transmission 

line connecting the project substation to 

the local utility; and (7) appurtenant 

facilities. The Inglis Project would 

annually generate approximately 12,300 

megawatt-hours. 

m. A copy of the application is 

available for review at the Commission 

in the Public Reference Room or may be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov. using the ‘‘eLibrary 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES