[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54157-54161]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23390]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84465 File No. SR-ISE-2018-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 303
(Approval To Operate Multiple Memberships)

October 22, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 10, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 303 (Approval to Operate
Multiple Memberships).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 303 to
permit ISE, instead of ISE's Board of Directors (``Board''), to grant
waivers to allow its members to operate multiple Primary Market Maker
(``PMM'') Memberships \3\ and Competitive Market Maker (``CMM'')
Memberships (together, ``Market Maker Memberships''). As explained
below, the Exchange is seeking to streamline the process by which its
members may be approved to operate multiple Market Maker Memberships
(hereinafter, ``waiver process''). No changes to the Market Maker
Membership structure itself are being contemplated by this rule change
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Membership'' refers to the trading privileges
associated with PMM Rights, CMM Rights, and EAM Rights. See Rules
100(a)(21) and 100(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    PMM Rights and CMM Rights (together, ``Market Maker Rights'') are
owned today by Exchange members or non-member owners (collectively,
``holders'').\4\ This ownership interest

gives holders the ability to transfer or lease their Market Maker
Rights to other members for trading pursuant to Rule 307 (Sale and
Transfer of Market Maker Rights) or Rule 308 (Leasing Memberships),
respectively. As such, the Exchange's rules provide holders with
limited voting rights (in addition to the trading rights) to protect
their ownership over these trading rights.\5\ This structure is a
remnant of ISE's original membership structure, where the original
Market Maker Rights provided the holders with an equity ownership
interest in ISE as well as trading rights on the Exchange.\6\ Today,
Market Maker Rights do not convey equity ownership in ISE, and the
ownership and operation of trading rights associated with Market Maker
Rights continue to exist separately. Despite this separation, ISE's
rules still contain certain limited voting rights and restrictions
related to the Market Maker Rights. The voting rights that remain in
place today for the holders of Market Maker Rights are as follows: (i)
The right to vote on any increase in the number of authorized PMM
Rights or CMM Rights, which must be approved by the affirmative vote of
the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding PMM Rights,
voting as a class, and the affirmative vote of the holders of at least
a majority of the outstanding CMM Rights, voting as a class (such
voting rights, ``Core Rights''); \7\ and (ii) the right to vote on any
amendments to ISE's LLC Agreement or By-Laws that would alter or change
the powers, preferences, or special rights of one or more series of PMM
Rights or CMM Rights, which must be approved by the holders of a
majority of such PMM Rights or CMM Rights, as applicable.\8\ As noted
above, these narrow voting rights exist today to protect the ownership
interests associated with the Market Maker Rights (i.e., the ability to
transfer or lease to other members for trading on ISE), whether as a
safeguard against potential dilution in value as noted above, or as the
right to vote on any impactful changes to ISE's governing documents
that would alter the nature of their interests. Also, one limitation,
which has existed without change since ISE's inception, is a mandatory
cap that prohibits the holder or lessee of Market Maker Rights,
together with any affiliates, from gaining ownership or voting rights
in excess of 20% of the outstanding PMM Rights or CMM Rights, as
applicable.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Non-member owners'' are individuals and organizations that
are not members of the Exchange or that are otherwise members, but
do not seek to exercise trading privileges associated with such
Market Maker Rights. See Rule 300(a). Non-member owners are required
to lease the trading privileges associated with the Market Maker
Rights (i.e., the Membership) to Exchange members. See Rule 300(b).
    \5\ As discussed more fully later in the filing, these voting
rights are in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Rule 300.
    \6\ Under ISE's original membership structure, the original
Market Maker Rights provided the holders with an equity ownership
interest in ISE as well as trading rights on the Exchange. As such,
those rights were transferable or leasable to approved persons or
entities (i.e., Exchange members or non-member owners), subject to
ownership and voting limitations, as well as concentration limits on
exercising the trading rights associated with multiple Market Maker
Rights. Additionally, the original Market Maker Rights conferred
broader voting rights to protect the holder's equity interest, such
as the right to vote on corporate actions like mergers or
consolidations, and the right to vote on changes to the ownership
structure of ISE like increasing the number of memberships in a
class. From the beginning, the holders of EAM Rights had no equity
interests in the Exchange and only had rights to trade on the
Exchange. Those rights were not transferable by the holders, and
could only be held by Exchange members. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 42455 (February 24, 2000), 65 FR 11388 (March 2, 2000)
(Order Granting Registration as a National Securities Exchange). ISE
has since demutualized and reorganized, resulting in the separation
of the two functions of Market Maker Rights. Today, equity ownership
in ISE is held by ISE Holdings as the sole LLC member; the ownership
and operation of trading rights associated with the Market Maker
Rights (along with the ability to transfer or lease such rights)
continue to exist separately, as held by member or non-member
owners.
    \7\ See Rule 300(d). Presently, the number of outstanding PMM
Rights and CMM Rights are 10 and 160, respectively. See Rule
100(a)(13) and (46). Due to this limited number, the Core Rights
effectively serve as a protection against the potential dilution of
the value of the PMM and CMM Rights resulting from subsequent
increases in the number of those rights.
    \8\ See Rule 300(e).
    \9\ See Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 303. The Exchange is
not proposing any changes to the ownership and voting limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the ownership and voting limitations, Rule 303(b)
contains trading concentration limits that restrict an applicant or
approved member, together with any affiliates, from operating more than
one (1) PMM Membership or more than ten (10) CMM Memberships. Today,
the Board may waive the limitations contained in this rule if it
determines that good cause has been shown and such action is, in its
judgment, in the best interests of the Exchange.\10\ The Board is not
permitted, however, to waive this requirement if such waiver would
result in the applicant or approved member (together with any of its
affiliates) being approved to exercise trading privileges associated
with more than 20% of the outstanding CMM Memberships.\11\ The
foregoing limitations serve to minimize potential concerns arising from
a member owning or operating multiple memberships, and the Commission
has previously noted that a regulatory concern can arise if a member's
interest in an exchange becomes so large as to cast doubt on whether
the exchange can fairly and objectively exercise its self-regulatory
responsibilities with respect to that member. For example, a member
that directly or indirectly controls an exchange might be tempted to
exercise that controlling influence by directing the exchange to
refrain from diligently monitoring and surveilling the member's conduct
or diligently enforcing its rules and the federal securities laws with
respect to conduct by the member that violates such provisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ When making its determination whether good cause has been
shown to waive the limitations contained in Rule 303(b), the Board
will consider whether an operational, business or regulatory need to
exceed the limits has been demonstrated. In those cases where such a
need is demonstrated, the Board also will consider any operational,
business or regulatory concerns that might be raised if such a
waiver were granted. See Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 303.
    \11\ A similar strict 20% concentration cap was previously in
place for operating multiple PMM Memberships, but the Exchange has
over the years relaxed and later eliminated this strict cap. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53271 (February 10, 2006), 71
FR 8625 (February 17, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-46) (``2005 Proposal'');
and 77410 (March 21, 2016), 81 FR 16248 (March 25, 2016) (SR-ISE-
2016-07) (``2016 Proposal''). In justifying the 2016 Proposal, the
Exchange cited to other exchanges like CBOE and NYSE Arca that did
not have mandatory caps on the number of issues or trading rights
that could be allocated to their designated primary market-maker or
lead market makers. See 2016 Proposal at 16249. It should also be
noted that both CBOE and NYSE Arca provide for allocations to be
done at the exchange, not board, level. See CBOE Rule 8.84 and NYSE
Arca Rule 6.82-O.
    \12\ See 2005 Proposal at 8625 and 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 303 is implicated in the context of a transfer or lease of
Market Maker Rights pursuant to Rule 307 (Sale and Transfer of Market
Maker Rights) or Rule 308 (Leasing Memberships), respectively, and the
approval of such transfer or lease would result in a member exceeding
the limits contained in Rule 303(b) (i.e., the transfer or lease would
result in the member operating more than 1 PMM Membership or more than
10 CMM Memberships). The Exchange notes that a transfer or lease of
Market Maker Rights can occur when an ISE Market Maker exits the
options market making community, and thus ceases operating their Market
Maker Membership, resulting in a decrease of the number of ISE Market
Makers.\13\ In such cases, the Board may find it appropriate to waive
the trading concentration limit in Rule 303(b) after determining that
good cause has been shown and if doing so would be in the

best interest of the Exchange to allow, for instance, a qualified PMM
to operate more than 1 PMM Membership. In making this determination,
the Board would also take into account whether the waiver to allow a
member to operate multiple Market Maker Memberships would enable the
member to exercise direct or indirect control over ISE in a manner that
would cast doubt on whether ISE can fairly and objectively exercise its
self-regulatory responsibilities with respect to that member.\14\ In
this respect, the Board serves as an independent check on potential
undue influence concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ While Exchange receives applications for new ISE Market
Makers as well, this decrease is parallel to the continued
consolidation in the options market making community and resulting
decrease in the number of market makers, which served as an impetus
for the both the 2005 Proposal and 2016 Proposal as discussed in
note 11 above.
    \14\ Pursuant to the Exchange's By-Laws, the Board is
responsible for ensuring that the Exchange complies with its self-
regulatory obligations to protect investors, maintain fair and
orderly markets, and advance the public interest. In carrying out
this responsibility, the Board is further required to appoint a
Regulatory Oversight Committee, composed solely of Board members
each of whom must be a Public Director (i.e., has no material
business relationship with a broker or dealer or with the Exchange
or its affiliates) and an ``independent director'' as defined in
Rule 5605 of the Rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, to assist
the Board in overseeing the adequacy and effectiveness of ISE's
regulatory and self-regulatory responsibilities See Exchange By-Law
Article III, Sections 3(b) and 5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 303 to permit the Exchange
to grant waivers to allow members to operate multiple Market Maker
Memberships, instead of the Board. As such, the limitations on members
exercising the trading privileges associated with more than one (1) PMM
Membership or more than ten (10) CMM Memberships may be waived by the
Exchange if the member shows good cause, which will be determined by
the Exchange pursuant to the standards set forth in Supplementary
Material .01 to Rule 303. The Exchange is not proposing any changes to
the Market Maker Rights ownership structure itself, or to the
Exchange's corporate governance by bringing the waiver authority from
the Board to the Exchange. As proposed, holders will continue to have
the ability to transfer or lease their rights to other members for
trading on ISE as well as voting rights on certain limited matters to
protect their ownership over these trading rights.\15\ Furthermore, the
Market Maker Rights will still be subject to the same ownership,
voting, and concentration limits in place today. Specifically, the 20%
ownership and voting limitations in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule
303 will remain under this proposal. The trading concentration limits
in Rule 303(b), including the strict cap that prohibits the Board from
approving a member to operate more than 20% of the outstanding CMM
Memberships, will likewise remain under this proposal. The Exchange is
only proposing to change the manner in which the 1 PMM Membership and
10 CMM Membership concentration limits in Rule 303(b) may be waived
(i.e., from the Board to the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See notes 7 and 8 above, and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this change will help with the
administration and application of Rule 303 by bringing the Exchange's
membership transfer process more in line with other exchanges.\16\ The
current practice often results in a long and lengthy process to
organize a Board meeting to consider such applications, and the
Exchange is concerned that there may be a deterioration of market
quality in the interim. Furthermore, Exchange staff has been involved
in all aspects of the waiver process through its work with the Board,
including gathering and assessing relevant information on the member
applying to operate multiple Market Maker Memberships for purposes of
determining whether or not there is good cause shown under Rule
303.\17\ Given that PMM and CMM Rights are, for all practical purposes,
rights to trade on the Exchange as described above, the Exchange
believes that the process in Rule 303, specifically making the
determination whether good cause has been shown to waive the
limitations in Rule 303(b) to allow a member to operate multiple
trading privileges associated with a PMM or CMM Right, is a proper
function of the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange's proposal does
not change the Market Maker Rights ownership structure, nor does it
change the Exchange's governance. Holders will continue to have the
same ability to transfer and lease their rights to other members for
trading on ISE as well as voting rights on certain limited matters to
protect their ownership over these trading rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See note 11 above. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that its
affiliates, Phlx and BX, similarly allow for transfers of allocated
options classes at the exchange, and not board, level. See Phlx Rule
508, which requires exchange approval of any proposed agreement
between specialists to transfer one or more options classes already
allocated to a specialist. See also BX Chapter VII, Section 13(D),
which governs requested transfers of options classes between BX lead
market makers, and also provides for an exchange-driven process. On
ISE, a Market Maker Membership manifests itself as a group of
options classes allocated to the member, so a transfer of the
membership is similar to the way transfers of options classes are
handled on Phlx and BX.
    \17\ Specifically, Exchange staff, including from the options
business team, market operations, and regulatory department, gather
relevant information on the applicant member that includes the
number of Market Maker Memberships that the member currently
operates and other market quality data as appropriate. This
information is then compiled into a report that is sent to the Board
to assist them in making the good cause determination under Rule
303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recognizes that allowing a member to operate multiple
Market Maker Memberships could raise issues regarding concentration of
market making expertise, including regulatory concerns around undue
influence, as discussed above. In this regard, Rule 303 is still only
an enabling rule. With the proposed change, the Exchange will still
need to find good cause to approve any member to operate more than one
PMM Membership or more than ten CMM Memberships, and could consider the
number of Memberships already operated by the member in determining
whether or not there is good cause shown. Thus, the Exchange will need
to weigh each potential application on its own merits, balancing the
potential benefits of allowing a member to exercise more than one PMM
Memberships, or more than ten CMM Memberships, against any
concentration concern.
    In addition, the Exchange's internal procedures will stipulate that
all such determinations will be made in consultation with the
Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (``CRO'').\18\ It is already the
Exchange's current practice to involve the CRO as part of the waiver
process in that the CRO weighs in on any regulatory concerns that could
arise from a member operating multiple Market Maker Memberships, so the
Exchange would effectively make current practice a requirement.
Furthermore, the CRO reports directly to the Regulatory Oversight
Committee (``ROC''), a Board committee composed solely of Public
Directors that are also independent directors, and ultimately to the
Board, on a regular basis.\19\ As proposed, to the extent any
determinations are made under Rule 303(b), such determinations will be
reported to the ROC and the Board on a regular basis. In addition, the
Exchange's regulatory staff, which will continue to be involved in the
waiver process, operates under the direction of

the ROC, and works separately and independently from the Exchange's
business units. Given the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the
proposed process serves an appropriate independent safeguard in
assessing and protecting against regulatory concerns around undue
influence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Specifically, Exchange staff, including regulatory staff,
in consultation with the CRO, would make this determination based on
relevant information on the applicant member, including the number
of Memberships already operated by the member and other market
quality data that the Exchange deems appropriate.
    \19\ See note 14 above. See also Nasdaq ISE By-Law Article IV,
Section 7. The Board receives reports from the ROC during its
regularly scheduled Board meetings, where the ROC members as well as
the CRO are all present to answer any questions from the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board will therefore still be informed of determinations made
under Rule 303 under the proposed process through the CRO's regular
reports to the ROC and will, through this process, review and assess
against potential undue influence concerns.\20\ Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the Board will still have meaningful oversight
notwithstanding the proposed changes to the waiver process itself.
Ultimately, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes should
significantly improve the flow and efficiency of the waiver process
while retaining the regulatory independence of the waiver process
through the both the ROC's and Board's oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See notes 14 and 19 above, with accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. As discussed above, the Exchange is not seeking to amend any
of the rights or limitations associated with the Market Maker Rights
ownership structure, or to Exchange's corporate governance by bringing
the waiver authority from the Board to the Exchange. Overall, the
proposed rule change is intended to streamline the Exchange's waiver
process by allowing the Exchange, instead of the Board, to waive the
trading concentration limits in Rule 303(b). As discussed above, the
current practice often results in a long and lengthy process to
organize a Board meeting to consider such applications, and the
Exchange is concerned that there may be a deterioration of market
quality in the interim. The Exchange views the waiver process as a
proper function of the Exchange given that the PMM and CMM Rights are,
for all practical purposes, rights to trade on the Exchange.
Furthermore, the proposed changes will bring the Exchange's waiver
process more in line with other exchanges, where the transfer of a
market maker's allocated options classes are handled at the exchange,
and not the board, level.\23\ As discussed above, Exchange staff,
including regulatory staff, has been involved in all aspects of the
waiver process through its work with the Board, and will continue to be
involved by gathering and assessing relevant information on the member
applying to operate multiple Market Maker Memberships for purposes of
determining whether or not there is good cause shown under Rule 303.
Furthermore, the CRO will be directly involved in all such
determinations as described above, as is the case today, and will
report to the ROC and Board on such matters. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes will help with the administration
and application of Rule 303 while retaining the regulatory independence
of the waiver process through both the ROC's and Board's oversight, as
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ See notes 11 and 16 above, with accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to streamline the waiver process for allowing a member to
operate multiple Market Maker Memberships, and does not have a
competitive effect. Furthermore, all similarly situated members will be
subject to the same requirements and processes proposed hereunder.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \24\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-86 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-86. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2018-86, and should be submitted on or before November 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\

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

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23390 Filed 10-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37241-37243]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12126]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0638; FRL-10966-01-OAR]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Information
Collection Request; Comment Request; Waiver From Tier 4 Emission
Standards for Marine Diesel Engines (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), Waiver from Tier 4
Emission Standards for Marine Diesel Engines (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number
2602.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0726) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through January 31, 2024. This notice allows for 60 days for
public comments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0638 to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public docket without
change including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Lennox, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31, 2024. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting
documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA adopted the Tier 4 marine diesel engine standards in
June 2008, under the authority of the Clean Air Act (73 FR 37096). The
Tier 4 standards were phased in, with an effective date beginning in
2016 through 2018 for most engines. In August 2020, EPA amended those
regulations in response to industry concerns about the availability of
suitable Tier 4 certified engines for installation in certain kinds of
high-speed vessels. The amendments provided focused relief for
qualifying engines and vessels in two phases, depending on engine and
vessel size. Builders of qualifying vessels were required to submit to
EPA information describing their need for regulatory relief and
demonstrating that their vessels met the size and power conditions.
     Phase One was available through 2021 and was limited to
propulsion engines with maximum power output up to 1,400 kW and power
density of at least 27.0 kW per liter displacement. Additionally, the
relief is limited to vessels up to 65 feet waterline length with total
nameplate propulsion power at or below 2,800 kW. This includes vessels
such as lobster fishing boats, pilot boats, and some research boats.
     Phase Two is available through 2023 and is limited to
vessels with a single propulsion engine with maximum power output up to
1,000 kW and power density of at least 35.0 kW per liter displacement,
where the vessel is made with a nonmetal hull and has a maximum length
of 50 feet. These vessels are expected to be primarily lobster or other
fishing boats. EPA also adopted a waiver provision that can be applied
for, if necessary, beginning in 2024, if suitable engines continue to
be unavailable; this waiver requires the vessel builder to submit an
application which would be reviewed by EPA before issuing the waiver.
    This information collection request renewal covers the reporting
burden associated with applying for the waiver for vessels meeting the
criteria for Phase 2 relief.
    EPA will use the information requested under this collection to
determine if a boat builder qualifies for a regulatory waiver from the
marine diesel Tier 4 standards, allowing that manufacturer to install
Tier 3 engines on a qualifying vessel.
    The information described in this ICR will be collected by EPA's
Compliance Division (CD) within the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (OTAQ), Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). It will be used by
CD to evaluate whether companies qualify for using engines meeting less
stringent standards. It is collected electronically and stored in CD's
databases.
    Manufacturers may assert a claim of confidentiality over
information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is provided in accordance
with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part
2. We will release this information only as permitted or required under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 2 and part 1068. Non-confidential portions of the information
submitted to CD are available to trade associations, importers,
environmental groups, members of the public, and State and local
government organizations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are manufacturers that
sell or import into the United States new marine diesel engines and
manufactures that produce for sale in the United States certain high-
speed marine vessels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Respondents (boat
manufacturers) are required to respond only if they seek a waiver from
the marine diesel engine Tier 4 standards due to the unavailability of
suitable engines for installation on the boats they manufacture.
    Estimated number of respondents: 20 (total).
    Frequency of response: Respondents would apply for a Tier 4 waiver
for a specific vessel or vessels. The frequency of response will depend
on whether an additional waiver is needed for future vessels due to the
continued unavailability of suitable engines.
    Total estimated burden: 380 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $39,707 (per year); there are no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 380 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the end of the automatic delay
for application of the Tier 4 standards to affected boats and the need
to request a waiver from EPA to allow use of a Tier 3 engine if

a suitable Tier 4 engine continues to be unavailable.

William Charmley,
Director, Assessment and Standards Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-12126 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28154]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0556]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across Lake
Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate the Special Olympics event. This deviation
allows the bridge span to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on July
1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0556 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington Department of Transportation,
the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge across Lake Washington Ship
Canal, at mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to allow
event participates to cross the bridge safely. The Montlake Bridge is a
double leaf bascule bridge. In the closed-to-navigation position the
bridge provides 30 feet of vertical clearance and provides 46 feet of
vertical clearance at the center 60 feet of the bridge. Vertical
clearance refers to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. To
facilitate this event, the double bascule span is authorized to remain
in the closed-to-navigation position from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and
from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on July 1, 2018.
    The normal operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge operates in
accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e). Waterway usage on the Lake
Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small
pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-
to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able
to open for emergencies. Lake Washington Ship Canal has no immediate
alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform
the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to
Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-12940 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 167)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51098-51104]
[DOCID:fr29au06-4]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 260

[Docket No. RM06-18-000; Order No. 682]

Revision of Regulations To Require Reporting of Damage to Natural
Gas Pipeline Facilities

Issued August 23, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending its
regulations to require that jurisdictional natural gas companies report
damage to facilities as the result of a natural disaster or terrorist
activity that results in a reduction in pipeline throughput or storage
deliverability. The Commission is issuing this Final Rule based on its
experience following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina under the existing
reporting requirements which only require pipeline companies to report
service interruptions and therefore did not require natural gas
companies to report significant hurricane damage to facilities in
instances where service interruptions were avoided by rerouting gas
supplies or other means. The Commission has determined that the
additional reporting requirements are necessary in order to effectively
monitor the nation's natural gas infrastructure in crisis situations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule will become effective August 29, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Berne Mosley, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-
8625.
Howard Wheeler, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-
8688.
William Blome, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-
8462.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,
Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon
Wellinghoff.

I. Introduction

    1. On June 9, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in this
proceeding.\1\ In that NOPR, we proposed to revise Sec.  260.9 of our
regulations,\2\ which requires the reporting of serious service
interruptions on interstate natural gas pipeline facilities operated
under authority granted by the Commission under the Natural Gas Act.\3\
This Final Rule revises Sec.  260.9 largely in the manner described in
the NOPR, with certain modifications to clarify and limit the scope of
the new reporting requirements in response to the comments that have
been filed. The revisions to Sec.  260.9 will ensure that the
Commission has adequate and timely information concerning damage to
jurisdictional pipeline and storage facilities as the result of natural
disasters or terrorist activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 71 FR 35226 (June 19, 2006); FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,604
(2006).
    \2\ 18 CFR 260.9 (2006).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 717-717z (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    2. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the severe hurricanes
during the summer of 2005 did serious and widespread damage to the
energy production and delivery systems of the United States,
particularly in the Gulf Coast region. We noted that as of May 3, 2006,
shut-in natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico from Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita was equivalent to 12.95 percent of current daily gas
production.\4\ The Commission also explained that it had participated
in the Federal effort, led by the U.S. Department of Energy, to collect
post-hurricane information on damage to the nation's energy
infrastructure.\5\ The Commission learned that, although it had been
kept informed of serious service interruptions as the regulations
required, it lacked vital information regarding the physical condition
of facilities affecting operation of the pipeline grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Hurricane Katrina/Hurricane Rita Evacuation and Production
Shut-in Statistics Report as of Wednesday, May 3, 2006 [Final
Report], U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service (May 3, 2006).
    \5\ See Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5
(February 28, 2003), directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to
develop a National Response Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The deficiency in reporting following the 2005 hurricanes
resulted because the current reporting requirements of Sec.  260.9
apply only in the event of service interruptions. In instances where
service interruptions were avoided by adjusting nomination schedules,
rerouting gas flows over alternate facilities, or drawing down storage
supplies, Sec.  260.9 did not require that companies report damage to
gas facilities. Therefore, it was necessary for our staff to informally
gather information regarding damage to facilities from pipeline
companies and industry groups by telephone calls and other means. While
we took steps based on available information to encourage rapid repair
of facilities and restoration of service, including the granting of
waivers of various regulations where necessary,\6\ the informal
information gathering process was not adequate to ensure timely and
accurate monitoring of gas infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NOPR, at P. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. As the result of our experience during and following the 2005
hurricane season, we concluded that additional reporting requirements
are necessary to ensure that the Commission has enough information to
assess the status of the nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure
at any given time and share this information with other agencies, such
as the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Therefore, the Commission's June 9 NOPR proposed
modifications to Sec.  260.9 of the regulations to add a requirement
that pipelines report damage to certificated facilities that results in
loss of or reduction in service through such facilities and also report
when service through such facilities has been restored. The Commission
proposed to expand the informational requirements of Sec.  260.9 to
require reports including specific information concerning the location
and cause of damage to facilities and service interruptions, the time
of occurrence, emergency actions taken to maintain service, and other
matters. The revised Sec.  260.9 would also require that a company send
copies of damage reports to state commissions, as is already required
for reports of serious service interruptions. We also proposed to allow
filing by e-mail and to eliminate the reference to filing by telegraph.
    5. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on June 19,
2006,\7\ with July 19, 2006 being the deadline for comments. We
received nine sets of comments on the NOPR. Comments were filed by
American Gas Association (AGA),\8\ American Public Gas

Association (APGA),\9\ Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (Boardwalk
Pipelines), Duke Energy Gas Transmission, LLC (Duke Energy),\10\
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), National Fuel
Gas Distribution Corporation (National Fuel Gas),\11\ NiSource, Inc.
(NiSource),\12\ Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute), and Williston Basin
Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin). The comments are
described and addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 71 FR 35226.
    \8\ AGA represents 197 local energy utility companies delivering
gas to more than 56 million homes, business and industries in the
United States. AGA states that its members account for about 83
percent of all natural gas delivered by local distribution
companies.
    \9\ APGA is an association of approximately 650 municipal and
other publicly-owned local distribution systems in 36 states.
    \10\ Duke Energy owns Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Egan Hub
Storage, LLC; Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Saltville Gas
Storage, LLC; and East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC. It is a part-
owner of Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., and Gulfstream
Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    \11\ National Fuel Gas is a local distribution company subject
to the jurisdiction of the New York Public Service Commission and
the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. It is a member of AGA
and supports AGA's comments.
    \12\ NiSource owns and operates five interstate pipelines, ten
local distribution companies and a joint venture storage company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments

    6. The commenters representing local distribution companies express
strong support for the Commission's effort to ensure timely reporting
of damage to the natural gas infrastructure. These commenters emphasize
that information on the operating status of the pipelines' facilities
is a critical component of price formation, particularly during periods
of infrastructure distress such as that experienced as the result of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They believe the proposed reporting
requirements are needed to help consumers assess the supply and
transportation situation following such damaging events.
    7. The other commenters represent the interstate pipeline industry
and are potential respondents to the new reporting requirements. These
commenters generally acknowledge the need for this expedited rulemaking
proceeding to remedy the current gap in reporting requirements so that
the Commission is able to quickly identify significant infrastructure
problems in the event this season produces hurricanes as damaging as
last year's.
    8. However, the pipeline companies strongly urge the Commission to
work toward the long-term goal of minimizing duplicative Federal
reporting requirements by engaging in cooperative efforts with the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (DOT/Pipeline Safety) \13\ and the National Response
Center. Some commenters believe the Commission and these other agencies
ultimately should be able to develop a single, comprehensive form that
could be filed in one place and made available to any agency needing
the information.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DOT/Pipeline Safety's reporting requirements are part of
its administration of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968,
49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    \14\ Additional discussion pertaining to reporting burden is
included below in this Final Rule's Information Collection
Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In the interim, the pipeline companies request that the
Commission clarify and narrow the definition of ``damage'' in Sec.
260.9 so that pipeline companies will not be required to file reports
unnecessary to fulfill the Commission's objective in this rulemaking of
ensuring that it has adequate and timely information to identify
significant problems with the nation's natural gas infrastructure. The
pipeline companies emphasize that, as proposed, the new reporting
requirements would cause the agency to be inundated with reports of
trivial damage from routine or unimportant occurrences which could
result in important matters being obscured.
    10. These commenters also state that their employees' efforts to
locate and repair more serious areas of damage could suffer if they are
busy completing and filing forms on less serious matters in the middle
of an emergency. Thus, they urge the Commission to limit the damage
reporting requirement to situations where there is severe damage
causing serious disruption of service, and to exclude minor damage
resulting from occasional third-party activities and disruptions
resulting from routine maintenance.
    11. The pipeline companies emphasize that, absent clarification and
revision of the proposed regulations, the required reporting of damage
to facilities could capture many events irrelevant to the Commission's
objective in this rulemaking proceeding which, they believe, is to
ensure timely identification of damage resulting from serious events
that have the potential for impacts which, in the aggregate, may
significantly undermine the integrity of the nation's gas
infrastructure.
    12. As examples of incidents for which immediate reporting
generally is not necessary to achieve this objective, the pipeline
companies note accidental backhoe damage from construction, a farmer's
plow hitting a farm tap valve, compressor engine faults resulting in
short periods of service disruption or reduction of throughput
capability, corrosion and other damage revealed by regular inspections
and requiring a temporary reduction in pressure until repairs can be
made, and maintenance to replace equipment at the end of its useful
life or worn out from wear and tear. The pipeline companies also
discuss how much customer load is seasonal, so that a compressor
failure or even a line break, on a looped line, may have no effect on
customer service at all, depending upon when it happens.
    13. In sum, the pipeline companies stress that, while minor
incidents and accidents and routine maintenance may temporarily reduce
available service or capacity through particular facilities, such
incidents generally have no serious effect on the affected pipeline
system's ability to meet its service obligations or on the national
pipeline grid. These commenters believe that for these types of routine
occurrences, which number in thousands each year for the pipeline
industry as a whole, existing reporting requirements are
sufficient.\15\ Thus, these commenters request that the Final Rule's
expansion of current reporting requirements be limited to significant
damage from terrorism or natural disasters or other serious events
significantly affecting operation of the affected pipeline system or
the interstate pipeline grid. These commenters believe the Commission
should focus on damage resulting in a loss of or reduction in a
significant amount of firm service capacity--e.g., firm service
capacity of one million Dekatherms per day--for an extended period of
time which, depending on the commenter, should be between three and 15
days. If the pipeline company believes a damaged facility can be fully
restored to service within such time period, the commenters do not
believe the new reporting requirements should apply unless, in the
judgment of the pipeline company, the loss of or reduction in capacity
of the damaged facilities is

significantly impairing its ability to meet its customers' needs for
natural gas service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As discussed in the NOPR (at n. 9) and referenced by
commenters, pipeline companies are required to submit reports of
replacement facilities pursuant to 18 CFR 2.55(b) and annual reports
of construction activities under the automatic provisions of the
blanket certificate regulations in Part 157, Subpart F. Since these
reports are annual reports due on or before May 1 of each year and
hurricanes frequently occur in July, nine months can pass before a
pipeline is required to report construction activities. Further, the
information in these annual reports is not sufficient to determine
whether a particular construction activity was undertaken due to
damage to facilities resulting from a hurricane or other cause. In
addition, while the emergency regulations in Part 284, Subpart I,
require that the commencement of an emergency transaction be
reported within 48 hours, the emergency regulations do not require
the reporting of damage to facilities that may have made the
emergency transaction necessary or reporting regarding facilities
constructed to address the emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute), which operates a liquefied
natural gas (LNG) peak shaving plant in Nevada, requests that all
jurisdictional LNG storage facilities be exempted from the proposed new
reporting requirements. Paiute believes LNG storage operators already
are subject to adequate reporting requirements that were imposed as
conditions of the original authorizations for their LNG storage
facilities. Paiute also notes that a June 23, 2006 letter from the
Director of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects (OEP Director)
to LNG storage operators clarified the Commission's applicable
reporting conditions, which are similar to the reporting requirements
prescribed by the U. S. Department of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 191 for LNG storage facilities.

IV. Commission Response

    15. On July 31, 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released
a report titled ``Impact of the 2005 Hurricanes on the Natural Gas
Industry in the Gulf of Mexico Region.'' The report summarizes findings
from Federal monitoring of the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on
the natural gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico region from late August
2005 through early March 2006. It details the coordination of Federal
agencies, including the Commission, and various natural gas industry
personnel to track storm recovery efforts on a daily basis and identify
disrupted natural gas flows and possible bypasses.
    16. The July 31 report establishes insights into the complex supply
delivery operation associated with offshore natural gas production and
highlights the importance of accurate, timely information during
supply-related emergencies. The report finds that 3,050 of the Gulf's
4,000 platforms and 22,000 of the 33,000 miles of Gulf pipelines were
in the direct path of either Katrina or Rita, which caused destruction
and substantial damage to offshore production platforms and pipelines,
onshore production wells and pipelines, and other infrastructure
supporting the Gulf production and delivery system. When active Federal
monitoring of storm recovery efforts ended on March 8, 2006, production
had returned to about 9 Bcf per day, with an estimated 9.4 percent of
daily gas production remaining shut in as of June 19, 2006.
    17. DOE's report illustrates and confirms the need for additional
reporting requirements to ensure the Commission's timely gathering of
information to monitor the status of the nation's gas infrastructure in
emergency situations. Therefore, the Commission will adopt its proposal
to revise Sec.  260.9 of the regulations to require that natural gas
companies report damage to jurisdictional facilities as the result of
hurricanes and other natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods,
or terrorist activity.
    18. The Commission recognizes that in many instances reporting by
pipeline companies pursuant to the existing and new reporting
requirements of Sec.  260.9 will duplicate aspects of the initial
telephonic and subsequent written pipeline incident reports required by
DOT/Pipeline Safety. However, in view of the timing and format in which
such reports are submitted to DOT/Pipeline Safety, the Commission
cannot at the present time rely on those reports to meet its goals in
monitoring emerging problems with gas infrastructure during and
immediately following natural disasters or terrorist events. Further,
while the Commission has already initiated consultation with DOT/
Pipeline Safety regarding the possible development of a unified
reporting system to meet the needs of the Commission, DOT/Pipeline
Safety, the National Resource Center and other Federal agencies, such
an initiative does not offer an immediate solution to the problem of
duplicative reporting requirements, as the commenters acknowledge.
    19. However, the Commission is revising the proposed regulations to
narrow the scope of the new reporting requirements, since it was not
our intention in the June 9 NOPR to require that pipeline companies
immediately report incidents involving equipment failure, accidents and
other situations which neither result in serious service interruptions
(which are already subject to reporting under Sec.  260.9) nor threaten
a pipeline company's ability to meet its service obligations or
otherwise significantly affect the integrity of the nation's gas
infrastructure. While the commenters are correct that information
relating to many such incidents is reflected in the annual construction
reports pipeline companies are required to file,\16\ our reason here
for not requiring that these incidents be reported under Sec.  260.9 is
because immediate reporting in such instances is not crucial to our
objective in this rulemaking proceeding of ensuring that our reporting
requirements are adequate for timely gathering of information to
monitor gas infrastructure in crisis situations that present serious
threats to such infrastructure. Therefore, we will revise the proposed
regulations to make clear that Sec.  260.9 does not require the
reporting of such incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. We do not agree, however, that our objectives can be met if we
limit reporting under Sec.  260.9 to damage to facilities only used for
firm service or only in instances where throughput or capacity is
reduced by more than a certain amount or the pipeline expects the
facilities to be compromised for more than a few days. Since the new
reporting requirements will be triggered by natural disasters or
terrorist activity, the Commission will need all relevant information
regarding damage to facilities and all affected pipeline systems. While
a particular pipeline system may be able to take measures so that
damage to its facilities does not cause that pipeline system to
experience any immediate service interruptions, the damage on that
pipeline system contributes to cumulative impacts that may
significantly strain the gas infrastructure. Further, following a
natural disaster or terrorist event, the Commission needs information
on the status of all affected facilities, including facilities
experiencing minimal damage, to facilitate the identification of
possible paths for rerouting gas around more seriously damaged
facilities.
    21. In view of these considerations, the Commission is adopting new
reporting requirements but is revising its proposal in the NOPR so that
the additional reporting will be limited to requiring that pipeline
companies report any damage to pipeline or storage facilities from a
natural disaster or terrorist activity if such damage reduces pipeline
throughput or storage deliverability. These limited new reporting
requirements will ensure that the Commission has adequate, timely
information to assess the status of gas infrastructure immediately
following a natural disaster or terrorist event. However, as some
commenters recognize, there may be other situations in which damage to
pipeline and storage facilities creates the potential for
destabilization of the gas infrastructure. Therefore, as a means of
obtaining information regarding such occurrences without imposing
overly inclusive reporting requirements that would unduly burden
respondents, revised Sec.  260.9 also will include a provision, as
recommended by some commenters, to encourage pipeline companies to
report any other damage which the pipeline companies, in their
judgment, think creates the potential for serious delivery problems on
their own systems or the pipeline grid. We are providing for this

additional reporting in pipeline companies' discretion in recognition
of their systems' wide variations in size, configuration, and levels
and types of service. Incorporating a further level of discretion into
the reporting provisions of Sec.  260.9 is appropriate, since pipeline
companies know their own systems and the nuances of their operations,
and therefore can judge what other instances involving damage to
facilities present the potential for significant problems on their own
systems or the pipeline grid.
    22. We also agree with Paiute's position that existing reporting
requirements applicable to LNG storage operators are adequate, and that
it is therefore appropriate to exclude damage to such facilities from
the new reporting requirements in Sec.  260.9. As emphasized by Paiute,
when the Commission authorizes new LNG storage facilities under either
section 3 of the NGA for imported LNG supplies or under section 7 of
the NGA for liquefied domestic natural gas facilities, the Commission
makes such authorization subject to specific reporting conditions.\17\
These conditions require that an LNG storage operator report to
Commission staff within 48 hours any significant non-scheduled
event.\18\ In the event an abnormality is of significant magnitude to
threaten public or employee safety, cause significant property damage,
or interrupt service, notification is required to be made immediately,
provided that making such notification shall not unduly interfere with
any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, or other
emergency procedure. Further, on June 23, 2006, as noted by Paiute in
its comments, the OEP Director sent all LNG storage operators a letter
providing guidance and instructions for reporting significant incidents
and reiterating and reinforcing the reporting conditions applicable to
LNG storage operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Cheniere Sabine Pass
Pipeline Company, 109 FERC ] 61,324 (2004) at Appendix B,
Environmental Condition 44.
    \18\ Examples of reportable LNG-related incidents set forth in
the conditions include, but are not limited to, fires; explosions;
free flow of LNG for five minutes or more that results in pooling;
unintended movement or abnormal loading by environmental causes,
such as an earthquake, landslide or flood, that impairs the
serviceability, structural integrity, or reliability of an LNG
facility; any crack or other material defect that impairs an LNG
facility's structural integrity or reliability; any malfunction or
operating error that causes a dangerous rise in the pressure of an
LNG facility; any leak that constitutes an emergency; or any safety-
related condition that could lead to an imminent hazard and cause a
20 percent reduction in operating pressure or shutdown of operation
of an LNG facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. In view of the above-described reporting requirements already
applicable to LNG facilities, the Commission agrees that it is not
necessary to make the new reporting requirements of Sec.  260.9
applicable to such facilities. Therefore, revised Sec.  260.9 will
specifically exclude the reporting of damage to LNG facilities.
    24. However, Paiute's comments have caused the Commission to
identify wording in existing and proposed Sec.  260.9 which needs to be
revised in order to avoid the potential for a significant gap in
reporting. Specifically, the current and proposed wording of Sec.
260.9 provide for the reporting of damage and service interruptions
only with respect to natural gas facilities operated under
``certificate'' authorization from the Commission. Since import and
export facilities authorized under section 3 of the NGA are not
certificated facilities, Sec.  260.9 does not explicitly address these
facilities. In particular, the Commission is concerned that the
reporting requirements of Sec.  260.9 do not presently specifically
apply to border crossing facilities authorized under NGA section 3.
Such facilities, which are used to import or export gas between the
United States and Canada or Mexico, are of national security interest,
as evidenced by the requirement, pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 10485
and 12038, dated September 3, 1953, and February 3, 1978, respectively,
and the Secretary of Energy's Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A,
effective May 16, 2006, that applicants for such facilities must accept
Presidential Permits granted by the Commission after consultation with
the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.\19\ Under the
conditions of a Presidential Permit, the President of the United States
may determine that the safety of the United States demands that the
United States take possession and control of any facilities operated
under the Presidential Permit.\20\ Section 260.9 is revised to ensure
that NGA section 3 non-LNG facilities are subject to the reporting
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Clark Fork & Blackfoot, L.L.C. and EnCana Border
Pipelines Limited, 115 FERC ] 61,131 (2006).
    \20\ Id., at Appendix, Presidential Permit, Article 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Final Rule's Regulations

    25. Section 260.9(a) currently requires that natural gas companies
report serious service interruptions. The amended regulations add a new
requirement to Sec.  260.9 in revised subparagraph (a)(1) that natural
gas companies report (i) damage to natural gas facilities from a
hurricane or other natural disaster or terrorist activity that results
in loss of or reduction in pipeline throughput or storage
deliverability, and (ii) when the damaged facilities' pipeline
throughput or storage deliverability has been fully restored. Section
260.9 also is amended, as reflected in revised subparagraph (a)(2), to
provide that, in the event of damage to a natural gas company's
jurisdictional natural gas facilities by reason other than hurricane,
earthquake or other natural disaster or terrorist activity, the natural
gas company should report such damage if, in the natural gas company's
judgment, such damage creates the potential for serious delivery
problems on its own system or the pipeline grid.
    26. Section 260.9(b) is amended to remove the reference to
``telegraph'' and to require that natural gas companies make required
reports of interruptions to service or damage to facilities by e-mail
or, as currently provided for in Sec.  260.9(b), facsimile
transmission. All reports shall be due at the earliest feasible time
after an interruption of service or damage to pipeline facilities for
which a report is required pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) or provided
for in subparagraph (a)(2).
    27. The information required by Sec.  260.9(b) is revised to
reflect the addition of the proposed new requirement that natural gas
companies report damage to facilities and subsequently report when the
damaged facilities have been repaired. Revised Sec.  260.9(b) requires
that a report of service interruption or damage to natural gas
facilities state:
    (1) The location of the service interruption or damage to natural
gas pipeline or storage facilities;
    (2) The nature of any damage to pipeline or storage facilities;
    (3) Specific identification of the facilities damaged;
    (4) The time the service interruption or damage to the facilities
occurred;
    (5) The customers affected by the service interruption or damage to
the facilities;
    (6) Emergency actions taken to maintain service; and
    (7) Company contact and telephone number.
    28. Section 260.9(b) also is revised to require that a company make
a subsequent report stating when pipeline throughput or storage
deliverability has been restored.
    29. Section 260.9(d) is revised to change, from 20 days to 30 days
following a service interruption or damage to facilities, the time
within which a natural gas pipeline company must furnish to the
Commission a copy of any incident report required to be made to the
U.S. Department of

Transportation under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968.
    30. Section 260.9(e) currently requires that a company send copies
of reports of service interruptions to state commissions. Section
260.9(e) is revised by adding a new requirement that a company also
must send state commissions copies of reports of damage to facilities
required by revised subparagraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii).

VI. Environmental Analysis

    31. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\21\ As
stated in the NOPR, no environmental consideration is raised by
promulgation of a rule that is procedural in nature or that does not
substantially change the effect of legislation or regulations being
amended.\22\ The regulations adopted herein make changes to the type of
information to be provided to the Commission by pipeline companies and
the way it is provided, and slightly alter the timeframe (giving the
companies more time) to file with the Commission a copy of the incident
report required to be filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The modified procedures will not substantially change the regulatory
requirements to which pipeline companies are currently subject.
Accordingly, the preparation of an environmental document is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \22\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \23\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if proposed
regulations would not have such an effect. Under the industry standards
used for the RFA, a natural gas pipeline company qualifies as a ``small
entity'' if it has annual receipts of $6.5 million or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within
the RFA's definition of a small entity.\24\ Approximately 114 natural
gas companies are potential respondents subject to the additional
reporting requirements adopted by this rule. For the year 2004 (the
most recent year for which information is available), 32 companies had
annual revenues of less than $6.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623. Section 3 of the SBA defines a ``small business
concern'' as a business which is independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field of operation. The Small
Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) defines a small natural gas pipeline
company as one that transports natural gas and whose annual receipts
(total income plus cost of goods sold) did not exceed $6.5 million
for the previous year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Section 260.9 of the regulations already requires natural gas
companies to report serious service interruptions. Thus, the new
reporting requirements will only increase the number of reports that a
company must file to the extent that damage to facilities is the result
of a natural disaster or terrorist action and does not result in a loss
of or reduction in service. Further, the required information will
already be known and identified by companies and can be submitted
either by e-mail or facsimile. While the revised provisions of Sec.
260.9 also encourage natural gas companies to report damage to
jurisdictional facilities as the result of occurrences other than
natural disasters and terrorist activity if, in the natural gas
company's judgment, such damage may create the potential for serious
delivery problems on its system on the pipeline grid, such reporting is
in the respondent's discretion. In view of these considerations, the
Commission hereby certifies that this Final Rule's amendments to the
regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.

VIII. Information Collection Statement

    35. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that
OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure
(collections of information) requirements imposed by agency rules.\25\
Pursuant to OMB regulations, the Commission is submitting these
reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section
3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\26\ Upon approval
of a collection of information OMB will assign an OMB control number
and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements
of this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2005).
    \26\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax: (202)
273-0873, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    37. As discussed above, Sec.  260.9 of the Commission's regulations
already requires natural gas companies to report serious service
interruptions. The new requirements will only increase the number of
reports that a pipeline company is required to file to the extent that
damage to facilities is the result of a natural disaster or terrorist
activity and does not cause an interruption of service. Since these
reports are event-driven, it is possible that there will be no
additional reports filed at all if the pipelines do not experience any
hurricane, other act of nature, or act of terrorism in a year. While
the revised provisions of Sec.  260.9 also encourage natural gas
companies to report damage to jurisdictional facilities as the result
of occurrences other than natural disasters and terrorist activity if,
in the natural gas company's judgment, such damage may create the
potential for serious delivery problems on its system on the pipeline
grid, such reporting is in the respondent's discretion.
    38. Information regarding damage to facilities will be readily
ascertainable by companies and may be submitted either by e-mail or
facsimile. Such electronic submission of reports will reduce the number
of data entry errors, permit Commission staff to analyze data in a
timely manner, and provide for storage of data on digital storage
media. The new rule eliminates the no longer feasible option of filing
by telegraph. It is expected that electronic filing will save time and
resources since electronic filings require fewer personnel than are
needed for paper processing and mailing. The integrity of the data
should be improved because the Commission and companies subject to its
jurisdiction will be able to correct errors more promptly. The
Commission has initiated consultation with DOT/Pipeline Safety to
pursue the commenters' recommendation that the Commission and other
Federal agencies cooperate to develop a unified reporting system that
would minimize duplicative filing requirements.
    39. FERC-576, ``Report of Service Interruptions,'' identifies the
Commission's information collection relating to Part 260, ``Statements
and Reports (Schedules),'' of the regulations which apply to natural
gas pipeline companies having facilities subject to

the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. This Final
Rule establishes a new requirement that natural gas pipeline companies
report damage to jurisdictional facilities as the result of natural
disasters and terrorist activity and report when damaged facilities are
fully restored to service. The regulations maintain the existing
requirement that natural gas companies report serious interruptions of
service and report restoration of service. The regulations also require
natural gas pipeline companies to submit copies of required damage
reports to relevant state agencies and maintain the requirement that
copies of serious service interruptions be submitted to the relevant
state agencies. The rule provides an additional 10 days for the
pipeline company to file with the Commission a copy of any incident
reporting form required to be filed within 30 days of the incident with
the U.S. Department of Transportation pursuant to the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act of 1968.
    40. Public Reporting Burden: Three commenters stated that the
Commission's burden estimates in the NOPR were too low,\27\ and five
commenters felt that the requirements were overly broad and
burdensome.\28\ Further, six commenters stated their concerns about the
duplication of the information that is provided to the Commission and
to the Department of Transportation.\29\ As discussed above, it was not
the Commission's intention to require that natural gas companies report
accidents, equipment failures or other occurrences having minimal
effect on normal operations. Rather, the Commission's limited objective
in adopting additional reporting requirements is to ensure that natural
gas companies report damage as the result of hurricanes or other
natural disasters or terrorist activities since these events present
the potential for serious destabilization of the nations' gas
infrastructure, as demonstrated following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Therefore, the Final Rule revises the proposed regulations to limit the
scope of the new reporting requirements accordingly. Further, the Final
Rule revises the proposed regulations to exclude LNG facilities from
the scope of the reporting requirements under Sec.  260.9, as
recommended in the comments. Finally, while the Final Rule clarifies
that the Sec.  260.9 reporting requirements cover non-LNG facilities
authorized under section 3 of the NGA, we have explained that there are
few such facilities and they generally are limited to a few hundred
feet of pipeline extending from the international borders. In view of
these revisions and clarifications in this Final Rule, we find that the
NOPR's estimates of reporting burden remain appropriate and believe
that commenters' concerns should be assuaged. While the provisions of
revised Sec.  260.9 encourage natural gas companies to also report
damage to jurisdictional facilities as the result of causes other than
natural disasters and terrorist activity, if the natural gas company
believes such damage presents the potential for causing serious
delivery problems on its system or the pipeline grid, such additional
reporting is not mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Boardwalk Pipeline, Williston Basin, and NiSource.
    \28\ Duke Energy, Boardwalk Pipeline, Williston Basin, INGAA,
and NiSource.
    \29\ AGA, INGAA, Duke Energy, Boardwalk Pipeline, Williston
Basin, and NiSource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. In light of the above discussion, the burden estimates for
complying with the additional filing requirements of this rule pursuant
to the procedures in the amended Sec.  260.9 of the Commission's
regulations are the same as estimated in the NOPR issued in this
proceeding on June 9, 2006, as set forth below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of        Hours per
               Data collection                  respondents       responses         response       Total  hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-576....................................              15               35                2               70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection: 70.
    These are mandatory information collection requirements.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission sought comments about
the time and corresponding costs needed to comply with this
requirement. No comments were received. Because of the regional
differences and the various staffing levels that will be involved in
preparing the documentation (legal, technical and support) the
Commission is using an hourly rate of $150 to estimate the costs for
filing and other administrative processes (reviewing instructions,
searching data sources, completing and transmitting the collection of
information). The estimated annual cost is anticipated to be $10,500
(70 hours x $150).
    Title: FERC 576 ``Report of Service Interruptions.''
    Action: Information Collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0004.
    Respondents: Natural gas companies/business or other for-profit.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of Information: The amended regulation revises the
reporting requirements for service interruptions and damage to
facilities subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
jurisdiction. The information filed with the Commission apprises it of
serious pipeline service interruptions and also of serious damage to
the nation's natural gas pipeline infrastructure. The amendment
enhances this information by requiring filers to describe specifically
which facilities have been damaged and how the damage occurred.
    42. Comments on the Final Rule may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget. For information on the requirements, submitting
comments on the collection of information and the associated burden
estimates including suggestions for reducing this burden, please send
your comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 (Attention: Michael Miller, Office of
the Executive Director,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or send comments to the Office
of Management and Budget (Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and reference this rulemaking Docket No. RM06-

18-000 in your submission.

IX. Document Availability

    43. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in
the Commission's document management system, eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available in eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format
for viewing, printing, and

downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    44. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-mail
at FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502-8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-mail at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).

X. Effective Date

    45. These regulations are effective August 29, 2006. Section 553(d)
of the APA \30\ generally requires a rule to be effective not less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register unless good cause is
found to shorten the time period. The need for this rule to fill a gap
in the Commission's reporting requirements was identified as the result
of the Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Another hurricane season is in
progress. Therefore, it is crucial that this rule's reporting
requirements be in effect immediately to ensure that the Commission has
adequate information to monitor the nation's natural gas infrastructure
and identify any gas supply delivery problems and possible paths to
reroute gas supplies around facilities damaged by a hurricane.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause to make this rule
effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Congressional Notification

    46. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule
within the meaning of section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\31\ The Commission will submit the
Final Rule to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability
Office.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2000).
    \32\ 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 260

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 260 of
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 260--STATEMENTS AND REPORTS (SCHEDULES)

0
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Section 260.9 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  260.9  Reports by natural gas pipeline companies on service
interruptions and damage to facilities.

    (a)(1) Every natural gas company must report to the Director,
Division of Pipeline Certificates, at the earliest feasible time:
    (i) Damage to any jurisdictional natural gas facilities other than
liquefied natural gas facilities caused by a hurricane, earthquake or
other natural disaster or terrorist activity that results in a loss of
or reduction in pipeline throughput or storage deliverability; and
    (ii) Serious interruptions of service to any shipper involving
jurisdictional natural gas facilities other than liquefied natural gas
facilities. Such serious interruptions of service shall include
interruptions of service to communities, major government installations
and large industrial plants outside of communities or any other
interruptions which are significant in the judgment of the pipeline
company. Interruptible service interrupted in accordance with the
provisions of filed tariffs, interruptions of service resulting from
planned maintenance or construction and interruptions of service of
less than three hours duration need not be reported.
    (2) In the event of damage to a natural gas company's
jurisdictional natural gas facilities other than liquefied natural gas
facilities by reason other than hurricane, earthquake or other natural
disaster or terrorist activity, the natural gas company should report
such damage if, in the natural gas company's judgment, such damage
creates the potential for serious delivery problems on its own system
or the pipeline grid.
    (b) Any report of damage to facilities required by paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section, any report of service interruption required
by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section and any report made pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section in a natural gas company's discretion
must be submitted by the natural gas company by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by facsimile transmission to the Director,

Division of Pipeline Certificates, Office of Energy Projects at FAX
number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (1) Reports required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) or made in a
natural gas company's discretion pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) shall be
made at the earliest feasible time and must state:
    (i) The location and cause of the service interruption or damage to
natural gas pipeline or storage facilities;
    (ii) The nature of any damage to pipeline or storage facilities;
    (iii) Specific identification of any facilities damaged;
    (iv) The time the service interruption or damage to facilities
occurred;
    (v) The customers affected by the interruption of service or damage
to facilities;
    (vi) Emergency actions taken to maintain service; and
    (vii) Company contact and telephone number.
    (2) Following a report required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section of damage to natural gas facilities resulting in loss of
pipeline throughput or storage deliverability or a report pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section in a natural gas company's discretion,
the natural gas company shall report to the Director, Division of
Pipeline Certificates, at the earliest feasible time when pipeline
throughput or storage deliverability has been restored.
* * * * *
    (d) In any instance in which an incident or damage report involving
jurisdictional natural gas facilities is required by Department of
Transportation reporting requirements under the Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act of 1968, a copy of such report shall be submitted to the
Director, Division of Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of the
reportable incident.
    (e) When a report of damage to facilities is required by paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section or a report of service interruption is
required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, a copy of the e-mail
or facsimile report required pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section
must be sent to each State commissions for the States in which the
reported service interruptions or damage has occurred.

 [FR Doc. E6-14281 Filed 8-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P