PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS (2006)

PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS

70692

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(i) By May 31, each handler shall

submit to the Board a Treatment Plan

for the upcoming crop year: Provided,

That, for the 2007–08 crop year, which

begins on August 1, 2007, each handler

shall submit to the Board its Treatment

Plan by May 1, 2007. A Treatment Plan

shall describe how a handler plans to

treat his or her almonds, and must

address specific parameters as outlined

by the Board for the handler to ship

almonds. Such plan shall be reviewed

by the Board, in conjunction with the

inspection agency, to ensure it is

complete and can be verified, and be

approved by the Board. Almonds sent

by a handler for treatment to an off-site

facility affiliated with another handler

shall be subject to the approved

Treatment Plan utilized at that facility.

Handlers shall follow their own

approved Treatment Plans for almonds

sent to an off-site facility that is not

affiliated with another handler.

(ii) Handlers utilizing an on-site

verification program shall cause the

inspection agency to verify that their

Treatment Plans have been followed,

and that their almonds have been

subjected to an acceptable treatment

process that has been validated by a

Board-approved process authority. Such

handlers shall submit, or cause to be

submitted, a verification report to the

Board. The inspection agency must

physically observe the treatment process

to issue such report.

(iii) Handlers utilizing an audit-based

verification program shall be subject to

periodic audits conducted by the

inspection agency. The inspection

agency shall provide copies of the audit

report to the Board. Handlers who do

not comply with an audit-based

verification program shall be required to

revert to an on-site verification program.

(iv) Interhandler transfers of almonds

may or may not be treated prior to

transfer. Handlers receiving untreated

almonds from another handler shall be

responsible for treating the product.

Handlers receiving treated almonds

from another handler must have

procedures outlined in theirTreatment

Plan addressing how the integrity of the

treated almonds will be maintained. In

all instances involving interhandler

transfers, the receiving handler shall be

responsible for ensuring that the

almonds are treated prior to shipment

and maintaining documentation to that

effect.

(5) Records. Handlers shall maintain

records and documentation that will be

subject to audit by the Board for the

purpose of verifying compliance with

this section. Records must be

maintained for two full years following

the end of the crop year, and must

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:05 Dec 05, 2006

Jkt 211001

identify lots from the point of treatment

forward to the point of shipment by the

handler. Lot identification shall also

provide the ability to differentiate

treated from untreated product.

(6) Exemptions. Handlers may ship

untreated almonds under the following

conditions. For purposes of this section,

container means a box, bin, bag, carton,

or any other type of receptacle used in

the packaging of bulk almonds.

(i) Handlers may ship untreated

almonds for further processing directly

to manufacturers located within the

U.S., Canada or Mexico. This program

shall be termed the Direct Verifiable

(DV) program. Handlers may only ship

untreated almonds to manufacturers

who have submitted ABC Form No. 52,

‘‘Application for Direct Verifiable (DV)

Program for Further Processing of

Untreated Almonds,’’ and have been

approved by the Board’ TERP. Such

manufacturers must apply to the Board

and be approved annually by the TERP.

Should the applicant disagree with the

TERP’s decision, it may appeal the

decision in writing to the Board, and

ultimately to USDA. The Board shall

issue a DV User code to an approved

manufacturer. Handlers must reference

such code in all documentation

accompanying the lot and identify each

container of such almonds with the term

‘‘unpasteurized.’’ Such lettering shall be

on one outside principal display panel,

at least 1⁄2 inch in height, clear and

legible. If a third party is involved in the

transaction, the handler must provide

sufficient documentation to the Board to

track the shipment from the handler’s

facility to the approved DV user.

Approved DV Users shall:

(A) Subject such almonds to a

treatment process or processes using

technologies that achieve in total a

minimum 4-log reduction of Salmonella

bacteria as determined by the FDA,

accepted by the Board’s scientific

review panel, or established by a Boardapproved process authority;

(B) Identify the manufacturing

locations where treatment will occur;

(C) Have their treatment technology

and equipment validated by a Boardapproved process authority. Treatment

technology and equipment that have

been modified to the point where

operating parameters such as time,

temperature, or volume, change shall be

revalidated;

(D) Have their technology and

procedures verified by a Boardapproved DV auditor to ensure they are

being applied appropriately. On an

annual basis, DV auditors must submit

an application to the Board on ABC

Form No. 53, ‘‘Application for Direct

Verifiable (DV) Program Auditors,’’ and

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

be approved by the Board’s TERP.

Should the applicant disagree with the

TERP’s decision, it may appeal the

decision in writing to the Board, and

ultimately to USDA;

(E) Maintain all records regarding

validation and verification of treatment

methods, processing, and product

traceability. Such records shall be

retained for two years and shall be made

available for review by the Board; and,

(F) Ship any almonds which will not

be treated to a handler, to another

approved DV User, to locations outside

the U.S., Canada, and Mexico

(containers must remain identified with

the term ‘‘unpasteurized’’), as specified

in § 981. 442(b)(6)(i), or dispose of such

almonds in non-edible channels.

(ii) Handlers may ship untreated

almonds directly or through a third

party to locations outside the U.S.,

Canada, and Mexico, provided that each

container of such almonds is identified

with the term ‘‘unpasteurized.’’ Such

lettering shall be on one outside

principal display panel, at least 1⁄2 inch

in height, clear and legible. If a third

party is involved in the transaction, the

handler must provide sufficient

documentation to the Board to track the

shipment from the handler’s facility to

the importer in the foreign country.

(7) Other restrictions. The provisions

of this section do not supersede any

restrictions or prohibitions regarding

almonds grown in California under the

FederalFood, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or

any other applicable laws or regulations

or the need to comply with applicable

food and sanitary regulations of city,

county, State or Federal agencies.

Dated: December 1, 2006.

Lloyd C. Day,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 06–9543 Filed 12–1–06; 12:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 2, 33, 365 and 366

[Docket No. AD07–2–000]

Repeal of the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 1935 and Enactment

of the Public Utility Holding Company

Act of 2005; Transaction Subject to

FPA Section 203; Supplemental Notice

of Technical Conference

November 27, 2006.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM

06DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

technical conference.

PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is

holding a technical conference in

Commission Docket No. AD07–2–000

on December 7, 2006, to discuss certain

issues raised in rulemakings issued in

Commission Docket Nos. RM05–32–000

and RM05–34–000. The Commission is

providing the agenda for the conference,

a list of participants and providing

interested parties an opportunity to file

written comments following the

conference.

DATES: Comments may be filed on issues

raised at the conference, on or before

January 26, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roshini Thayaparan (Legal Information),

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, (202) 502–6857.

Andrew P. Mosier, Jr. (Legal

Information), Office of General

Counsel, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

conference addresses certain issues

raised in rulemakings issued in Docket

No. RM05–32–000 (70 FR 75592,

December 20, 2005) and Docket No.

RM05–34–000. (71 FR 1348, January 6,

2006).

As announced in the Notice of

Technical Conference issued on October

6, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) will hold a

technical conference on December 7,

2006, to discuss certain issues raised in

rulemakings issued in Docket Nos.

RM05–32 and RM05–34.1 The technical

conference will be held from 9:30 am to

4:30 pm (EST) at the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in

the Commission Meeting Room. All

interested persons are invited to attend,

and registration is not required.

The agenda for this conference, with

a list of participating panelists, is

attached. In order to allot sufficient time

for questions and responses, each

speaker will be provided with five (5)

1 Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company

Act of 1935 and Enactment of the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667,

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,197 (2005), order on reh’g,

Order No. 667–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,213,

order on reh’g, Order No. 667–B, FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 31,224 (2006), reh’g pending; Transactions

Subject to FPA Section 203, Order No. 669, FERC

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,200 (2006), order on reh’g, Order

No. 669–A, FERC Stats. Regs. ¶ 31,214 (2006), order

on reh’g, Order No. 669–B, FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 31,225 (2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:05 Dec 05, 2006

Jkt 211001

minutes for prepared remarks. Due to

the limitation of time, slides and

graphic displays (e.g., PowerPoint

presentations) will not be permitted

during the conference. Presenters who

wish to distribute copies of their

prepared remarks or handouts should

bring 100 double-sided copies to the

technical conference. Presenters who

wish to include comments,

presentations, or handouts in the record

for this proceeding should file their

comments with the Secretary of the

Commission. Comments may either be

filed on paper or electronically via the

eFiling link on the Commission’s Web

site at http://www.ferc.gov. Following

the conference, any interested person

will be permitted to file written

comments in the above docket on or

before January 26, 2007.

A free webcast of this event will be

available through http://www.ferc.gov.

Anyone with Internet access who

desires to view this event can do so by

navigating to http://www.ferc.gov’s

Calendar of Events and locating this

event in the Calendar. The event will

contain a link to its webcast. The

Capitol Connection provides technical

support for the free webcasts. It also

offers access to this event via television

in the DC area and via phone bridge for

a fee. Visit http://

www.CapitolConnection.org or contact

Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at

703–993–3100 for more information

about this service.

Commission conferences are

accessible under section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For

accessibility accommodations please

send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov

or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice)

or 202–208–1659 (TTY), or send a FAX

to 202–208–2106 with the required

accommodations.

For more information about this

conference, please contact:

Andrew P. Mosier, Jr., Office of Energy

Markets and Reliability, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, (202) 502–6274,

Andrew.Mosier@ferc.gov.

Roshini Thayaparan, Office of the

General Counsel—Energy Markets,

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

70693

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6857, Roshini.Thayaparan@ferc.gov.

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary.

Agenda for Technical Conference on

Public Utility Holding CompanyAct of

2005 and Federal Power Act Section

203 Issues 2

December 7, 2006

Welcome Remarks:

9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m.

Panel 1: Panel on Cross-Subsidization

9:45 a.m.–11:45 a.m.

The Commission invites panelists to

discuss whether there are additional

actions, under the Federal Power Act

(FPA) or Natural Gas Act (NGA), that

the Commission should take to

supplement the protections against

cross-subsidization that were

implemented in Order No. 667, et al.

and Order No. 669, et al. Specifically,

the Commission seeks panelist input on

any or all of the following issues:

FPA Section 203 Authorities

Æ In discussing the safeguards

necessary to protect consumers under

FPA section 203, Order No. 669 states

that applicants ‘‘must adopt sufficient

safeguards, including any necessary

cash management controls (such as

restrictions on upstream transfers of

funds, ring fencing, etc.) to prevent any

cross-subsidization between holding

companies and their new subsidiaries

before receiving section 203 approval.’’

As a general matter, the Commission

and most states have authority to review

proposed mergers/corporate

dispositions involving public utilities

and to impose cross-subsidization

safeguards as a condition of approval;

they also have rate related authorities to

protect customers against inappropriate

cross-subsidization. Should the

Commission adopt specific generic

cross-subsidization safeguards in its

section 203 regulations or is it

preferable, particularly in light of state

authorities, for the Commission to

permit applicants to implement

safeguards on a case-by-case basis

subject to audit oversight?

Æ With respect to FPA section 203

merger/corporate applications, should

the Commission require more specific

cross-subsidy protections in addition to

2 The lists of panelists for this technical

conference may change. The Commission will issue

a further notice of changes if time permits.

Additionally, issues raised in the Order No. 667, et

al. and Order No. 669, et al. rulemakings with

respect to whether the Commission should change

its merger policy, including its competition

analysis, will be discussed at a subsequent

technical conference.

E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM

06DEP1

70694

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules

PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS

the general requirement that there shall

be no cross-subsidization resulting from

or reasonably foreseeable as a result of

a FPA section 203 transaction?

Æ Should the Commission adopt, by

regulation, generic ‘‘ring fencing’’ or

other conditions of merger approvals

(other than codifying a version of its

current code of conduct/merger

restrictions) or should the Commission

continue to consider such conditions on

a case-by-case basis? In light of the fact

that most states have authority to adopt

such protections, is further generic

action by the Commission inappropriate

or unnecessary at this time?

Æ Is the Commission getting sufficient

information in FPA section 203

applications to make a determination

that a merger or other corporate

transaction will not result in crosssubsidization or the encumbrance of

utility assets? If not, what additional

information should the Commission

require FPA section 203 applicants to

file?

FPA and NGA Rate and Accounting

Authorities

Æ Are there additional generic actions

the Commission should take under its

FPA or NGA authorities (other than FPA

section 203, which is discussed in other

questions above) to protect customers

against inappropriate crosssubsidization or encumbrances of utility

assets? Are reporting requirements,

rather than restrictions, a better way in

which to protect against crosssubsidization and the encumbrance of

utility assets?

Æ Should the Commission adopt

regulations under FPA sections 205 and

206 to codify existing restrictions

regarding power and non-power goods

and services transactions between

traditional public utilities and their

‘‘unregulated’’ affiliates? Should these

existing restrictions apply to all

traditional public utilities and their

affiliates irrespective of whether they

are seeking merger approval under FPA

section 203 or market-based rate

approval under FPA section 205?

Should the scope of the existing power

and non-power goods and services

restrictions be expanded and, if so,

how?

Æ In light of the submissions to date

of the FERC Form No. 60 (Service

Company Report), which applies to

centralized service companies, is the

Commission getting sufficient

information to protect against

inappropriate cross-subsidization and

the encumbrance of utility assets? Is

there other information the Commission

should routinely collect, or is case-bycase access to books and records in

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:05 Dec 05, 2006

Jkt 211001

audit and rate proceedings sufficient to

ensure that customers are protected

against inappropriate crosssubsidization?

Panelists

Æ The Honorable Ray Baum,

Commissioner, Oregon Public Utility

Commission

Æ The Honorable Robert Garvin,

Commissioner, Wisconsin Public

Service Commission

Æ John Antonuk, President, The

Liberty Consulting Group

Æ Randolph Elliot, Principal, Miller,

Balis & O’Neil, P.C., on behalf of the

American Public Power Association and

the National Rural Electric Cooperative

Association

Æ Brian Little, Assistant Controller,

AGL Resources Inc.

Æ Electric Utility Company

Representative—TBA

Æ Electric Utility Company

Representative—TBA

Æ Financial Representative—TBA

Lunch:

12 p.m.–1 p.m.

Panel 2: Panel on Cash Management

Programs and Money Pools

1 p.m.–2:30 p.m.

The Commission adopted its Cash

Management Rule, Order No. 634, et al.,

prior to the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA 2005),

when the Commission had no direct

authority over holding companies. The

Commission invites panelists to discuss

whether, and if so how, the Commission

should modify its Cash Management

Rule in light of PUHCA 2005. Should

the Commission codify specific

safeguards that must be adopted for cash

management programs and money pool

agreements and transactions? If so, what

should those safeguards be?

Panelists

Æ Denise Parrish, Deputy

Administrator, Wyoming Office of

Consumer Advocate

Æ Denise M. Furey, Senior Director,

Fitch Ratings

Æ Gas Industry Representative—TBA

Æ Electric Utility Company

Representative—TBA

Æ Electric Utility Company

Representative—TBA

Æ State/Customer Representative—

TBA

Break:

2:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m.

Panel 3: Panel on Exemptions, Waivers

and Blanket Authorizations Set

Forth in OrderNos. 667, et al. and

669, et al.

2:45 p.m.–4:15 p.m.

In Order No. 667, et al. and Order No.

669, et al., the Commission set forth

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

specific exemptions, waivers and

blanket authorizations from the

regulatory requirements set forth in

those orders. The Commission invites

panelists to discuss whether

modifications to the specific

exemptions, waivers and blanket

authorizations set forth in Order No.

667, et al. and Order No. 669, et al. are

warranted. Specifically, the Commission

seeks input as to the following issues:

—Exemptions and waivers set forth in

Order No. 667, et al.:

Æ Does the Commission need to

consider additional or different

exemptions and waivers than those set

forth in Order No. 667, et al. or should

it wait until it has had more experience

under the current rules?

—Blanket authorizations set forth in

Order No. 669, et al.:

Æ Does the Commission need to

consider additional or different blanket

FPA section 203 authorizations than

those set forth in Order No. 669, et al.

or should it wait until it has had more

experience under the current rules?

Æ In Order No. 669, et al., the

Commission granted a blanket

authorization under FPA section

203(a)(2) for holding companies to

acquire up to 10 percent of voting

securities of a securities in a

transmitting utility, an electric utility

company, or a holding company in a

holding company system that includes a

transmitting utility or an electric utility

company. Under what circumstances

would it be appropriate for the

Commission to grant a parallel blanket

authorization under FPA section

203(a)(1) for transactions that (a) involve

or permit transfers (dispositions) of up

to 10 percent of a public utility’s voting

stock; (b) involve a transfer of up to 10

percent of the voting stock of a holding

company that directly or indirectly

owns or controls a public utility?

Panelists

Æ State/Customer Representative—

TBA

Æ Customer/Financial

Representative—TBA

Æ Walter R. Burkley, Vice President

and Counsel, Capital Research and

Management Company

Æ Steven Bunkin, Managing Director

and Associate General Counsel,

Goldman, Sachs & Co./J. Aron &

Company

Æ Debra Bolton, Vice President and

Assistant General Counsel, Mirant

Æ Ike Gibbs, Vice President,

Compliance Director and Assistant

General Counsel, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Æ Electric Utility Company

Representative—TBA

E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM

06DEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Closing Remarks:

4:15 p.m.–4:30 p.m.

The Commissioners and staff may ask

questions at the conclusion of

presentations. All interested persons

may file written comments following

the technical conference on or before

January 26, 2007.

[FR Doc. E6–20609 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the

Bulk-Power System, Docket No. RM06–16–

000.

Facilities Design, Connections and

Maintenance Reliability Standards, Docket

No. RM07–3–000.

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM06–16–000]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the

Bulk-Power System

November 27, 2006.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice granting in part motions

PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS

for extension of time to file comments

and announcing rulemaking proceeding.

SUMMARY: On October 20, 2006, the

Commission issued a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking on mandatory

reliability standards for the Bulk-Power

System. 71 FR 64770 (November 3,

2006). The Commission is extending the

date to file comments on the proposed

rule at the request of Edison Electric

Institute and the ISO/RTO Council and

is establishing a comment period for

twenty revised proposed Reliability

Standards that were filed in this docket

on behalf of the North American Electric

Reliability Council (NERC). The

Commission is also opening a new

rulemaking proceeding for three new

proposed Reliability Standards that

were filed by NERC.

DATES: Comments on the NOPR are due

January 3, 2007. Comments on NERC’s

twenty revised proposed Reliability

Standards are due January 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,

identified by Docket No. RM06–16–000,

by one of the following methods:

• Agency Web site: http://ferc.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting

comments via the eFiling link found in

the Comment Procedures section of the

Preamble.

• Mail: Commenters unable to file

comments electronically must mail or

hand deliver an original and 14 copies

of their comments to: Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Office of the

Secretary, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426. Refer to the

Comment Procedures section of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

16:05 Dec 05, 2006

preamble for additional information on

how to file paper comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan First (Legal Information),

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 502–8529.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Jkt 211001

On October 20, 2006, in Docket No.

RM06–16–000, the Commission issued a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

on Mandatory Reliability Standards for

the Bulk-Power System.1 Comments on

the NOPR are due 60 days after

publication in the Federal Register, or

January 2, 2007. On November 17, 2006

and November 22, 2006, Edison Electric

Institute (EEI) and the ISO/RTO

Council, respectively, requested a seven

day extension to file comments.

On November 15, 2006, the North

American Electric Reliability Council,

on behalf of its affiliate, the North

American Electric Reliability

Corporation (NERC Corporation, and

collectively NERC), filed 20 revised

proposed Reliability Standards and

three new proposed Reliability

Standards for Commission approval.

The Commission certified NERC

Corporation as the Electric Reliability

Organization (ERO) pursuant to section

215 of the Federal Power Act in an order

issued July 20, 2006 in Docket No.

RR06–1–000.

NERC requested that the 20 revised

proposed Reliability Standards be

included as part of the NOPR issued by

the Commission in Docket No. RM06–

16–000. Because of their close

relationship with Reliability Standards

dealt with in the October 20, 2006

NOPR, the Commission will address

these 20 Reliability Standards as part of

that proceeding. The 20 revised

proposed Reliability Standards are:

CIP–001–1—Sabotage Reporting

COM–001–1—Telecommunications

COM–002–2—Communications and

Coordination

EOP–002–2—Capacity and Energy

Emergencies

EOP–003–1—Load Shedding Plans

EOP–004–1—Disturbance Reporting

EOP–006–1—Reliability Coordination—

System Restoration

INT–001–2—Interchange Information

INT–003–2—Interchange Transaction

Information

IRO–001–1—Reliability Coordination—

Responsibilities and Authorities

IRO–002–1—Reliability Coordination—

Facilities

IRO–003–2—Reliability Coordination—WideArea View

IRO–005–2—Reliability Coordination—

Current-Day Operations

PER–004–1—Reliability Coordination—

Staffing

PRC–001–1—System Protection Coordination

TOP–001–1—Reliability Responsibilities and

Authorities

TOP–002–2—Normal Operations Planning

TOP–004–1—Transmission Operations

TOP–006–1—Monitoring System Conditions

TOP–008–1—Response to Transmission

Limit Violations

Comments on these 20 revised

proposed Reliability Standards should

be submitted by January 3, 2007, in

Docket No. RM06–16–000. In addition,

the deadline for filing comments on the

NOPR is extended to January 3, 2007.

Accordingly, the requests for extension

of time filed by EEI and the ISO/RTO

Council are granted to the limited extent

set forth here.

The Commission is also opening a

new Docket No. RM07–3–000 for

processing the three new proposed

Reliability Standards. No preliminary

comments are being sought at this time.

A proposed rulemaking will be issued

later, and we will allow comments then.

The three proposed new Reliability

Standards included in this docket are:

FAC–010–1—System Operating Limits

Methodology for the Planning

FAC–011–1—System Operating Limits

Methodology for the Operations Horizon

FAC–014–1—Establish and Communicate

System Operating Limits

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.

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E6–20608 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

1 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, 117 FERC ¶ 61,084 (2006), 71 FR

64770 (November 3, 2006).

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

70695

E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM

06DEP1