[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65659-65666]
[DOCID:fr23no07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 375 and 385

[Docket No. RM07-16-000; Order No. 703]

Filing Via the Internet

Issued November 15, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising its regulations to provide that all
documents will be eligible for filing by means of the Commission's
eFiling system, with exceptions to be posted by the Secretary of the
Commission on the Commissions Web site.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective December 24,
2007. Changes made by this rule to the Commission's eFiling system will
be implemented at a later date, to be announced by the Secretary of the
Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbur Miller, Office of General
Counsel, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background

    1. On July 23, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) seeking comments on proposed revisions to its
regulations that will enable the implementation of the next version of
its system for filing documents via the Internet, eFiling 7.0. Filing
Via the Internet, 72 FR 42330 (July 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,621 (2007). The NOPR proposed to allow the option of filing all
documents in Commission proceedings through the eFiling interface
except for specified exceptions. The NOPR also sought comments on the
possibility of shifting its deadline for filings through the eFiling
system from close of business to midnight, and of utilizing online
forms to allow ``documentless'' interventions in all filings and quick
comments in P

(Hydropower Project), PF (Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed gas
pipelines), and CP (Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines)
proceedings. Finally, the NOPR asked for input on a number of technical
issues that will be covered in the instructions for eFiling that will
be issued by the Secretary of the Commission. These issues also were
the subject of a technical conference that took place on August 22,
2007.
    2. This Final Rule adopts the NOPR's proposal to amend the
Commission's regulations \1\ to provide that all documents filed with
the Commission may be submitted through the eFiling interface except
for documents specified by the Secretary. This reverses the existing
presumption, as the current regulations allow eFiling only of documents
specified by the Secretary. The changes we are implementing in this
Final Rule mean that categories such as oversized documents and most
confidential documents will be accepted via eFiling. At this time, the
principal exceptions, as noted in the NOPR, will be tariffs, tariff
revisions and rate change applications; some forms; \2\ and documents
that are subject to protective orders. As stated in the NOPR, for the
time being, the Secretary's instructions will specify that submitters
file paper copies of oversized and some other documents \3\ in addition
to the electronic documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 2003(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2003(c).
    \2\ The following will continue to be submitted through eForms:
FERC Form No.1, FERC Form No. 2, FERC Form No. 2-A, FERC Form No. 3-
Q, FERC Form No. 6, FERC Form No. 6-Q, Form 60, Form 714, and
Electric Quarterly Reports. FERC Form 1-F is currently not included
in eForms, so it may be efiled. Open Access Transmission Tariff
(OATT) filings may also be efiled.
    \3\ A list of examples of documents for which the Commission
will require paper copies is contained in the Appendix to the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. This rulemaking will become effective 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register, but implementation of eFiling 7.0 will occur
at a later date. The Secretary will announce the implementation of the
upgrade in advance and will also at that time post filing instructions,
as discussed below.
    4. This Final Rule implements the proposals, discussed in the NOPR,
to institute online forms that would permit optional ``documentless''
intervention in all proceedings and ``quick comments'' in P (Hydropower
Project), PF (Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed gas pipelines),
and CP (Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines) proceedings.
It should be noted that the quick comment and documentless intervention
features will not require revisions to the Commission's regulations. We
are not at this time implementing the proposal to move the filing
deadline to midnight.
    5. Prior to the release of eFiling 7.0, the Secretary will issue
instructions specifying formats and other technical parameters, as well
as instances in which paper copies will be required. As noted in the
NOPR, the Commission has already issued instructions specifying
acceptable file formats for filings submitted on CD-ROM, DVD and other
electronic media. These can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp.
 In addition, in some cases

Commission staff has issued instructions applying to specific types of
filings. Where there are no specifications for a particular type of
filing, users must follow the Secretary's instructions. The Commission
received useful input on formatting issues both in the comments on the
NOPR and in the technical conference. Users of eFiling should bear in
mind that changes will inevitably take place as staff implements
improvements and technology changes. Staff also receives feedback from
users on an informal basis, which it uses to continue improving the
system.
    6. At this time, the eFiling system will accept documents in their
native formats. This will include both text or word processing
documents, and other more specialized documents such as spreadsheets
and maps. It will also accept text documents in searchable formats,
including scanned documents that have been saved in searchable form. As
noted above, the Secretary has issued a list of acceptable formats for
CD-ROM, DVD and other electronic media, available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp.
 This same list

will serve as the list of acceptable formats for eFiling 7.0.
Submitters will be able to choose a suitable format from that list
unless they are instructed otherwise in specific instances by
regulation or by direction from Commission staff. Audio and video files
will be accepted only in waveform audio format (.wav) for audio content
and either audio-video interleave (.avi) or quicktime (.mov) files for
video content, except where submitters are specifically instructed
otherwise.
    7. The NOPR requested comments on the possibility of discontinuing
the practice of posting PDF versions of filings in eLibrary that are
created by Commission staff. For the time being, we will continue this
practice. As discussed in the NOPR, however, users should note that PDF
conversions are not always accurate or complete and should not be
considered authoritative. Some documents are not susceptible to
conversion at all. The PDF versions will be provided on a ``best
efforts'' basis, so in some cases no PDF version may appear in
eLibrary, or there may only be a placeholder file indicating that a PDF
version could not be generated.
    8. Finally, the NOPR requested comments on whether the Secretary
should require documents created electronically by the filer using word
processing software be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF
format rather than an unsearchable, scanned format. The Secretary's
instructions will adopt this proposal. Scanned, non-searchable formats
may be used only for documents that cannot, as a practical matter, be
put into searchable formats.

II. Discussion

A. Expansion of eFiling

    9. As stated above, upon implementation of eFiling 7.0 the
Commission will accept the electronic filing of all documents through
the eFiling interface except for tariff filings, some forms \4\ and
documents submitted under protective orders. The comments received by
the Commission on the expansion of eFiling were uniformly favorable.
Some commenters urged us to continue to expand the range of submissions
acceptable through eFiling. In some cases, commenters \5\ urged us to
accept tariff filings through the eFiling gateway, either on a
permanent basis or on a temporary basis pending the institution of
eTariff, which is the subject of a separate proceeding.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Note 2 infra.
    \5\ Edison Electric Institute (EEI), pp. 4-6; Arizona Public
Service Company (APSC), p. 3; Nevada Power Company & Sierra Pacific
Power Company (Nevada/Sierra), p. 3.
    \6\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Docket No. RM01-5-000, FERC
Stats. and Regs. ] 35,551 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We intend, as far as practicable, to continue decreasing our
reliance on paper documents and to continue to upgrade eFiling
capabilities in furtherance of the Commission's responsibilities under
the Government Paperwork Elimination Act.\7\ At this time, however, the
Commission will not accept tariff filings through the eFiling system.
The eTariff rulemaking will remain the forum for addressing the
electronic submission of tariff filings with tariff material. However,
eFiling may be used to file material in tariff proceedings provided the
filing does not contain tariff material. Examples include testimony
filed as part of the hearing, Schedules G-1 through G-6,\8\ and updated
statements such as

required by section 154.311 of the Commission's regulations.\9\ Also,
Natural Gas Act Section 7 certificate filings with pro forma tariff
sheets may be filed under this version of eFiling 7.0.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pub. L. No. 105-277, Sec.  1704, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-750
(1998).
    \8\ 18 CFR 154.313(j)(2) (2007).
    \9\ 18 CFR 154.311 (2007).
    \10\ Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA),
Appendix A, pp. 2 and 3, requests clarification of which part of
certificate and tariff filings would be filed utilizing eFiling 7.0,
and which part would be filed under the eTariff procedures. The
eTariff requirements are not complete, thus it is premature to
speculate as to what the electronic filing process for filings with
tariffs will be. At this time, however, tariff filings cannot be
split between electronic and paper filings. No part of a tariff
filing will be accepted through eFiling 7.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Some commenters \11\ expressed caution about the submission of
confidential documents, including a desire for more detail about that
function. There was some concern about the ability to alter a
document's security designation after it is filed.\12\ Some commenters
also requested clarification on the procedures for filing protected
documents,\13\ including the procedures for documents submitted
together with requests for protective orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EEI, pp. 6-7; Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and Enbridge,
Inc. (Enbridge), pp. 3-5; Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc. (MISO), pp. 2-3; Southern California Edison Company
(SoCal), pp. 2-3; Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company
(Williston Basin), p. 6.
    \12\ American Rivers, pp. 1-2.
    \13\ INGAA, p. 3; MISO, pp. 2-3; Williston Basin, pp. 6-7.
    \14\ EEI, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The anticipated procedure for the submission of confidential
documents is as follows: When a user accesses the File Upload screen,
the user will see tabs for three submission categories: Public, CEII
and Privileged. The files uploaded to each of these tabs will
automatically receive an accession number and be marked as Public, CEII
or Privileged. The entire eFiling session will be secured so the
documents during transmission will be encrypted. The following system
checks will be performed during the eFiling process:
     The file size will be checked to ensure the size is not
greater than 50MB.
     The file format will be checked to ensure it is a format
that FERC can support. The acceptable file format list can be found at
the following location: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp
.

     Files will be checked for viruses.
     The file name will be checked to ensure it is less than 60
characters including the period, spaces, and file extension (.doc,
.xls, .pps, etc.).
    If for any reason, the files that have been uploaded fail to pass
any one of the checks above, a message will be displayed identifying
the issue and the user will not be permitted to proceed with the filing
process.
    13. It will not be possible for a user, through eFiling, to change
the designation of a file as public, privileged, or CEII after
submission of the document. This will only be possible before
submission, in case the user changes her mind or finds a mistake. Any
subsequent redesignation request will have to be made by calling FERC
Online Support or the eFiling Help Line. Users should continue to
follow the Commission's regulations governing submission of
confidential documents.\15\ If a user needs to submit both a redacted
and a privileged form of a document, the latter should be submitted as
privileged and the former as public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 18 CFR 388.112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In some instances, a document may contain portions that are
privileged and other portions that constitute CEII. In such an
instance, the CEII portions would be filed as CEII and the privileged
portions would be filed separately and designated as privileged. If a
portion of a document was both privileged and CEII, it would be filed
as privileged because that is the higher security classification.
    15. Some parties request the ability to file privileged or CEII
material in paper-only format. The Commission notes that this Final
Rule only provides filers the option to use eFiling to make filings
with the Commission. Filers who do not wish to use eFiling need not do
so. To the extent that these commenters are requesting that the
Commission permit filers to split their filings into an electronic
component and a paper component, the Commission rejects this request.
The Commission does not want to assume the responsibility of finding
the paper and electronic components of a single filing and reassembling
those components for uploading into eLibrary or internal distribution
and analysis. Dual format filings create significant potential for
errors and delays.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that filers can make separate, free-
standing, paper-only and electronic only filings in the same
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. To clarify, materials subject to protective orders should not
be eFiled because the Secretary's office does not put protected
material into eLibrary, as opposed to material filed pursuant to
Section 388.112 of the Commission's regulations. The same restriction
applies to confidential materials filed with a request for a protective
order.

B. Paper Copies

    17. The NOPR proposed to continue to require paper copies of
filings submitted electronically through eFiling 7.0, for instance,
oversized documents such as maps, diagrams and drawings. The NOPR
explained that due to the size of standard monitors and other hardware
and software limitations, it was impractical at this time for the
Commission to review certain documents in electronic form. The NOPR
also raised the possibility of requiring paper copies for documents
over a certain length, such as 500 pages. Some commenters requested
that ``oversized documents'' or ``large documents'' be defined as those
documents larger than 8.5'' x 11'',\17\ 8.5'' x 14'',\18\ or 8.5'' x
17''.\19\ Others asked for further clarifications, such as whether the
paper requirement applies only to the oversized portions of documents
that also have standard dimensions.\20\ Commenters were not in favor of
requiring paper copies of long documents.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Williston Basin, p. 7.
    \18\ Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), p. 4.
    \19\ INGAA, p. 5.
    \20\ MISO, p. 3. PG&E, p. 3, asked for clarification of the
timeframe and dimensions, while INGAA, pp. 4-5, asked that the paper
copies be due after an accession number is assigned. SoCal, pp. 3-4,
urged that eFiling not be required where paper copies are submitted.
This will necessarily be the case, because the Commission is not at
this time making eFiling mandatory.
    \21\ INGAA, pp. 5-6; SoCal, p. 3; Nevada/Sierra, p. 5; PG&E, pp.
4-5; Williston Basin, pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Secretary's instructions will require paper copies in a
specified number of documents larger than 11'' x 17''. This is a
standard dimension for ``oversized'' documents. If a document contains
both oversized and standard dimensions, only the former need be filed
on paper. Paper copies of long documents, i.e., documents longer than a
specified number of pages, will not be required. Further specifics will
be contained in the instructions to be issued by the Secretary. Over
time, as we upgrade our capabilities, we expect to be able to reduce
the necessity of filing paper copies.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See comments of Nevada/Sierra, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. In response to the comments about the timing of submission of
paper copies, we wish to state clearly the roles played by the paper
and electronic copies. The revisions made in this Final Rule, in 18 CFR
385.2003(c)(1), will provide that ``filing via the Internet is in lieu
of other methods of filing.'' Thus, the electronic copy will be the
``filed'' copy. This will be the copy to which the Commission looks for
matters such as determining timeliness. Paper copies will be required
in some instances because they are currently necessary for FERC staff
to carry out its functions. The Secretary's instructions will specify
the

time by which the paper copies must be submitted.

C. File Formats

    20. The NOPR raised the possibility of discontinuing our practice
of creating PDF versions of documents in eLibrary.\23\ In conjunction
with this possibility, the NOPR requested comments on several
alternative requirements for file formats of documents submitted
through eFiling. The three alternatives noted were: Requiring that all
word processing filings be made in open file formats, such as text,
html, rtf, or possibly PDF; permitting filings in open file formats as
well as in certain Microsoft Office formats; and requiring that
documents created with proprietary software be filed in the proprietary
software along with an open source format. The NOPR also discussed the
possibility of prohibiting the practice of filing non-searchable,
scanned versions of documents created in native formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Some commenters referred to FERC-created Text documents as
well as PDF documents. Users should note that FERC creates Text
versions only of Commission issuances. It does not create such
versions of documents submitted through eFiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Generally speaking, commenters opposed any requirement that
documents be filed in more than one format.\24\ Some commenters favored
retention of FERC-created PDFs \25\ or otherwise expressed a preference
for some sort of open file format to maximize accessibility of
documents to the public.\26\ Preferences between native and converted
formats varied. Some commenters favored prohibiting the practice of
scanning documents and filing them in non-searchable formats.\27\ Some
noted that data-oriented documents such as spreadsheets lose much of
their utility if not filed in their native formats.\28\ Others
expressed a preference for filing scanned, non-searchable documents, in
PDF format, in some cases out of concern that the documents could be
manipulated.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ American Gas Association (AGA), p. 1 (word processing
documents); EEI, pp. 7-8; FirstEnergy Companies (FirstEnergy), pp.
6-7; Nevada/Sierra, pp. 6-7; SoCal, p. 4; Williston Basin, pp. 8-9;
INGAA, p. 8; Enbridge, pp. 7-8.
    \25\ AGA, pp. 5-6; EEI, pp. 7-9; Bonneville Power Administration
(Bonneville), p. 2; PG&E, pp. 5-6; American Rivers, pp. 2-3; U.S.
Department of the Interior (Interior), p. 1; INGAA, p. 7; Nevada/
Sierra, p. 6.
    \26\ American Rivers, pp. 3-4.
    \27\ AGA, p. 5; American Rivers, p. 4; Nevada/Sierra, p. 7;
MISO, p. 4; SoCal, p. 4; EEI, p. 8.
    \28\ American Rivers, pp. 3-4.
    \29\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), p. 2; MISO, p. 4;
Interior, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Based on the comments received, we will continue to create PDF
versions of submitted documents in eLibrary on a ``best efforts''
basis. This practice assures that users who may lack specific
proprietary software will be able to access documents most of the time.
As noted above, however, some documents cannot be converted to PDF
successfully and thus some conversions will not be entirely accurate or
complete. The FERC-created PDFs should not be considered authoritative.
Persons submitting documents through eFiling will have the option of
filing in any format listed as acceptable by the Secretary.
    23. The Secretary's instructions will require PDF files that are
submitted to be produced in a manner that retains the ability to search
the document (``print-to-PDF''), except in cases where it is
impracticable for the filer to do otherwise. This is often the case
with exhibits, for example. The search feature provides the Commission
and the public access to tools that permit faster searches, increased
accuracy, and enhanced analytical and processing capabilities that
modern software technology provides.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Commission notes that PG&E's PDF posting is an
excellent example of such a document: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?document_id=13543136
.

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

    24. Submission of text documents will be permissible in native or
in searchable format. We will not require submission of text documents
in both native and open formats. In most cases, submission of text
documents in their native formats is the simplest option. Not all users
possess the same degree of technical knowledge. Requiring conversion of
documents to open formats might serve as a barrier to the use of the
eFiling system for some users, a possibility that runs counter to the
underlying purpose of the system.
    25. Submission of spreadsheets in native format will be required.
Some commenters expressed concern that spreadsheets in native format
may contain formulas and other data that are confidential.\31\ One
commenter argues further that formula and data may contain proprietary
information, and that a native format requirement may contravene the
Interstate Commerce Act prohibition against disclosing individual
shipper information. That commenter believes the requirement to provide
formulas may lead to less publicly available data.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ MISO, p. 4; PJM Interconnection, p. 3; Enbridge, p. 8.
    \32\ 32 Enbridge, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The Commission addressed these issues before. In Order No. 582,
the Commission required pipelines filing rate cases pursuant to Part
154 of the Commission's regulations to file data and allocation and
rate design formulas in electronic formats. The Commission found that
formulas facilitate an understanding of the applicant's positions and
reduce the requirement for subsequent data requests. The Commission
went on to note that the requirement was not to submit the whole rate
case in spreadsheet format.\33\ The same will be true here. The
Commission is simply providing a different means by which data
requirements may be submitted, not changing the requirements
themselves. A filer still may request confidential treatment. In such
cases, the data sets and spreadsheets should be submitted in both
privileged, unredacted form and in public, redacted form, pursuant to
18 CFR 388.112.\34\ Depending on the application and the information
being redacted, a redaction might be accomplished by filing a print to
PDF or a scanned, searchable document, by converting a spreadsheet to
values-only form, or by some other means. It would be up to the filer
to choose an appropriate means of protecting its information in
requesting confidential treatment under the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural,
Gas Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs, Order No. 582, FERC Stats.
and Regs., ] 31,025, p. 31,435 (1995).
    \34\ See Order No. 582 at pp. 31,412-413, 31,435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. We do not agree with the concerns that documents may be
altered. There is no reason to believe that users will be able to
compromise the Commission's system and alter files in eLibrary.
Furthermore, if a user downloads a document from eLibrary and alters it
for the user's own purposes, the authoritative document will remain in
eLibrary to refute the alteration. We also do not believe that the
desire to include a scanned signature is sufficient to outweigh the
greater usefulness of searchable documents. As stated in the NOPR, the
Commission's regulations provide for electronic signatures, so an image
of a signature is not necessary for purposes of verification. For
submitters who still see a need for an image of a handwritten
signature, we note that it is possible to insert an image into a Word
document. Moreover, filers that previously scanned documents into PDF
format can produce a print-to-PDF searchable document and attach a
single scanned signature page.

D. Quick Comment and Documentless Intervention

    28. The NOPR's proposal to implement online forms that would allow
users to intervene in Commission proceedings without filing separate

documents and to submit comments easily in P (Hydropower Project), PF
(Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed gas pipelines), and CP
(Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines) proceedings drew
support from some commenters \35\ and opposition from a smaller number.
Some commenters objected to these features as unneeded.\36\ Some
commenters expressed concern that there should be some provision for
prompt service of interventions and comments submitted through the
proposed online forms.\37\ One commenter requested that users
submitting quick comments be required to provide mailing addresses and
other information.\38\ Another suggested that the quick comment feature
be extended to include electric matters and rulemakings.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ AGA, p. 4; American Rivers, pp. 4-5; Enbridge, p. 11; PG&E,
pp. 7-8; Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC (Spectra) (quick comment
only), p. 3; INGAA, pp. 9-10.
    \36\ FirstEnergy (quick comment only), pp. 3-5; Nevada/Sierra,
pp. 7-8; EEI, pp. 14-16.
    \37\ EEI, p. 15; Enbridge, p. 11; SoCal, p. 5.
    \38\ INGAA, p. 10.
    \39\ PG&E, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Both features are sufficiently useful to justify their
implementation. Documentless intervention, which will be available for
all proceedings, will provide a simple method of intervening. The filer
and text for all documentless interventions will be placed on eLibrary
to permit challenges to intervention. We believe that the quick comment
feature will make it easier for individuals who are not intimately
familiar with Commission procedures to submit comments. This added
convenience should primarily impact proceedings in which landowners may
wish to comment, which is the reason we will restrict this feature to
the proceedings listed in the preceding paragraph. We will consider
expanding the availability of the feature in the future. We will not
require quick comment submitters to include mailing addresses, a
potential invasion of privacy that is not warranted. With respect to
service of interventions and comments, these features will not involve
changes to the Commission's regulations. Any regulations governing
service will continue to apply. Furthermore, the use of eSubscription
should suffice to ensure that interested persons receive prompt notice
of these submissions.

E. Midnight Filing

    30. Comments were mixed on whether to regard documents submitted
through eFiling as having been filed on a specific day as long as the
document is received on or before midnight Eastern Standard Time of
that day. While some commenters favored the change,\40\ a larger number
either favored it only under specified conditions or opposed it
altogether.\41\ The objections included the personal hardship of late-
hour filing, unfairness to paper filers, and the possibility that some
filers would use the opportunity to file improper reply comments in
response to comments filed earlier in the day. Some commenters
suggested that if we moved the deadline, we should ensure that comments
would not be visible to the public in eLibrary until the next day.
Others were concerned that the eFiling system could be unavailable to a
user facing a deadline after it was too late to make a paper filing. We
also received suggestions that move the deadline to an intermediate
hour,\42\ such as 8 p.m. Eastern Time, as an accommodation to users in
Western time zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ APSC, p. 3; Bonneville, p. 2; Spectra, p. 4.
    \41\ AGA, pp. 6-8; INGAA, pp. 11-12; FirstEnergy, pp. 2-3; Mill,
Balis & O'Neil, P.C., pp. 1-4; Phillip Marston, p. 1; PJM
Interconnection, p. 3-4; PJM Transmission Owners, pp. 2-6; Nevada/
Sierra, p. 8; MISO, p. 5; Williston Basin, pp. 9-12; Enbridge, pp.
11-13; EEI, pp. 16-17.
    \42\ PJM Transmission Owners, p. 6; SoCal, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Based on the concerns raised in the comments, we will not at
this time alter the filing deadline. It will remain at close of
business, i.e., 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

F. Miscellaneous Comments

    32. On August 22, 2007, the Commission hosted a technical
conference that discussed the proposed changes to electronic filing and
electronic file and document format instructions that are associated
with this proceeding. The conference was conducted in two sessions.
Session 1 presented an overview of the electronic filing submission
instructions that will apply universally. Session 2 was divided into
sections that discussed information that is specific to each industry.
    33. We received some comments on various technical aspects of
documents submitted through eFiling, many of which were discussed
during the technical conference.\43\ These comments will be taken into
account by Commission staff \44\ in developing and revising the filing
instructions that the Secretary will issue. The instructions for
eFiling are an ongoing process, as staff often receives feedback on the
system from users, including comments received informally during
outreach efforts that give users an introduction to various aspects of
FERC Online.\45\ The delegated authority the Commission is giving the
Secretary to make changes to the various requirements to make an
electronic filing through the notice process will permit these
instructions to be updated in a timely manner in response to user needs
and changes in FERC's technological capabilities.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ PG&E, pp. 6-7; PJM, p. 3; EEI, pp. 11-14.
    \44\ The Appendix contains the comments on the draft document
manual that was discussed at the technical conference, as well as
the Commission's responses.
    \45\ One commenter, Enbridge, pp. 10-11, expressed concern about
file naming conventions. Users should be aware that naming
conventions will change with eFiling 7.0, a change that will be
spelled out in the Secretary's instructions.
    \46\ Williston, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. INGAA proposes that the pipeline's Index of Customers report,
already an electronic-only filing, be made through eFiling 7.0.\47\ The
Commission agrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ INGAA, App. A, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. INGAA and PG&E \48\ request that the Commission hold additional
technical conferences to review both the proposed instructions
applicable to electronic documents in general and existing electronic
document instructions, and software techniques that may assist filers
in creating documents that satisfy the filers' objectives. Further
conferences should not be necessary. The Secretary engages in outreach
with the public to review new or existing electronic document or
submission instructions. This outreach often generates feedback that
Commission staff takes into account in managing the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ INGAA, pp. 2-3, App. A, pp. 4-8; PG&E, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Some commenters made suggestions for improvements in the
Commission's online systems. These included requests that we take steps
to ensure that each entity in the eRegistration system has only one
registration \49\ and that we institute an automated service feature
for service among participants.\50\ The problem of multiple
registrations, specifically with entities being registered more than
once under slightly different names, is an issue that we hope to
address in the future. Similarly, an automated service feature would
add value for users and we hope to be able to institute such a feature
as we upgrade the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Enbridge, pp. 6-7.
    \50\ EEI, pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    37. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.\51\ This Final Rule does not contain any

information collection requirements and compliance with the OMB
regulations is thus not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Environmental Analysis

    38. 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.\52\
Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major federal action
having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human
environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act. Part 380 of the Commission's
regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an
Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement. Included is
an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative
actions.\53\ This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 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).
    \53\ 18 CFR 380.4(1) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    39. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \54\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This Final Rule concerns procedural matters and is expected to increase
the ease and convenience of filing. The Commission certifies that it
will not have a significant economic impact upon participants in
Commission proceedings. An analysis under the RFA is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    40. 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/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and

in the Commission'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.
    41. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    42. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-

8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    43. These revisions are effective December 24, 2007. Changes made
by this Final Rule to the Commission's eFiling system will be
implemented at a later date to be announced by the Secretary.
    44. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review
of Final Rules do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule
concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially
affect the rights of non-agency parties.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 375

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia,
Sunshine Act.

18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric utilities,
Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 375 and
385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 375--THE COMMISSION

0
1. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16451-16463.

0
2. Section 375.302 is amended by revising paragraph (z) to read as
follows:

Sec.  375.302  Delegations to the Secretary.

* * * * *
    (z) Issue instructions pertaining to allowable electronic file and
document formats, the filing of complex documents, whether paper copies
are required, and procedural guidelines for submissions via the
Internet, on electronic media or via other electronic means.

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
3. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701;
42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App.
U.S.C. 1-85 (1988).

0
4. Section 385.2001 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to
read as follows:

Sec.  385.2001  Filings (Rule 2001).

    (a) Filings with the Commission.
    (1) * * *
    (iii) By filing via the Internet pursuant to Rule 2003 through the
links provided at http://www.ferc.gov.

* * * * *

0
5. Section 385.2003 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)
to read as follows:

Sec.  385.2003  Specifications (Rule 2003).

* * * * *
    (c) Filing via the Internet. (1) All documents filed under this
Chapter may be filed via the Internet except those listed by the
Secretary. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Chapter,
filing via the Internet is in lieu of other methods of filing. Internet
filings must be made in accordance with instructions issued by the
Secretary and made available online at http://www.ferc.gov. Provisions

of this chapter or directions from the Commission containing
requirements as to the content and format of specific types of filings
remain applicable.
    (2) The Secretary will make available on the Commission's Web site
a list of document types that may not be filed via the Internet, as
well as instructions pertaining to allowable electronic file and
document formats, the filing of complex documents, whether paper copies
are required, and procedural guidelines.
* * * * *

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

Appendix

                                                               Comments on Document Manual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       No.                Commenter                  Manual ]                           Comment                                  Response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  EEI, p. 12 INGAA, App.  4.B and 4.E.c..............  Consistent with Staff's comments at the  The Commission agrees with regard to
                    A, p. 5.                                             technical conference, the instructions   the general instructions. However, to
                                                                         should be read as not requiring, but     the extent that there are regulations
                                                                         only encouraging, the use of automatic   that require table of contents in a
                                                                         table of contents and booking marking    document, then these software features
                                                                         functions, and that not using these      should be used.
                                                                         features will not result in rejection
                                                                         of the filing.
2................  EEI, p. 12............  4.C........................  EEI requests clarification that          The Commission clarifies that the
                                                                         spreadsheets do not need to be           instruction is written broadly. EEI's
                                                                         submitted in native file format if no    proposal could be implemented in a
                                                                         formulas are included.                   manner that could inhibit the ability
                                                                                to view and analyze the data. The
                                                                                Commission will permit such
                                                                                submissions, but will monitor the
                                                                                manner in which filers use this
                                                                                flexibility.
3................  EEI, p. 12............  4.D........................  This instruction should be corrected to  EEI is correct.
                                                                         include both spreadsheets and text
                                                                         files in the list of exceptions, as
                                                                         they are covered by other
                                                                         instructions.
4................  INGAA, App. A, p. 6...  4.E........................  Clarify that it is acceptable to use     The Adobe ``Document/Insert'' function
                                                                         the ``Insert'' feature of PDF            is acceptable.
                                                                         applications during the creation of an
                                                                         electronic file.
5................  EEI, p. 13............  5..........................  There is no need to include a            The Commission clarifies that the term
                                                                         transmittal letter and, indeed, it       ``Transmittal Letter'' as used in the
                                                                         should be discouraged, when a single     instructions is solely for the purpose
                                                                         document filing is made. Further, the    of the eFiling software to identify
                                                                         Commission should encourage the use of   the requisite lead public document for
                                                                         a single electronic document file and    filings consisting of several
                                                                         require the use of the label             documents. It does not have the same
                                                                         ``Transmittal Letter'' only when         definition as used in several sections
                                                                         multiple and separate electronic         of the Commission regulations. The
                                                                         documents are filed.                     contents of the ``Transmittal Letter''
                                                                                electronic file can go beyond the
                                                                                content requirements of a transmittal
                                                                                letter as provided for in the
                                                                                regulations.
6................  Enbridge, pp. 10-11...  5-10.......................  The Commission should clarify the        The example provided by Enbridge is
                                                                         effect that the file naming              related to the Index of Customers.
                                                                         conventions will have on existing file   Consistent with finding that the Index
                                                                         naming conventions.                      of Customers may be eFiled, the
                                                                                Secretary will modify the acceptable
                                                                                electronic file list.
7................  EEI, p. 13............  6..........................  The word ``tariff'' should be removed    It will be corrected.
                                                                         from the instruction.
8................  Enbridge, p. 10;        6..........................  The proposed 60 character limit needs    The Secretary will update other eFiling
                    INGAA, App. A, p. 6.                                 to be reflected in other eFiling         documentation to reflect this and
                                                                         documents, and the Commission should     other changes.
                                                                         clarify whether characters other than
                                                                         alpha-numeric are permitted in file
                                                                         names.
9................  EEI, p. 13............  6 and 8....................  The DOS file name character limit        No change is necessary.
                                                                         should be followed only by persons
                                                                         using DOS. Otherwise, more user-
                                                                         friendly names should be used.
10...............  EEI, p. 13............  11 and 14..................  The instructions should be modified to   There are hundreds of different types
                                                                         reflect the format requirements of       of documents filed with the
                                                                         Sec.   385.2003. If the intent is to     Commission. The instructions are meant
                                                                         relax these regulations, then the        to be flexible and not prescriptive
                                                                         regulations should be rewritten. If      for all possible documents. The
                                                                         there are any documents to which Sec.    Commission will monitor how filers'
                                                                          385.2003 does not apply, the            documents appear and their utility. If
                                                                         instructions should note them.           changes to either the instructions or
                                                                                regulations are necessary, either the
                                                                                Secretary or the Commission will
                                                                                propose the necessary modifications.
11...............  EEI, p. 14............  12.........................  Instruction should note that it does     The Commission clarifies that the
                                                                         not apply to text filings, nor           required information should be shown
                                                                         testimony or exhibits where the ALJ      at least once at the beginning of
                                                                         typically dictates header format.        every document. Readers should not
                                                                                have to rely on the Commission's
                                                                                eLibrary to determine the source of
                                                                                the document. ALJs may impose
                                                                                additional requirements.
12...............  EEI, p. 14............  12.........................  The use of ``et al.'' should be          The Commission so clarifies.
                                                                         permitted with the company name.

13...............  Enbridge, p. 10.......  12.........................  With regard to the location of data in   See item 11 above.
                                                                         the headers and footers, clarify that
                                                                         if there is no specific instruction
                                                                         for the data's location, it may be
                                                                         placed in any location in the header.
14...............  Enbridge, p. 10;        13.........................  Clarify the meaning of ``hard-keyed''    Most native format data files and some
                    INGAA, App. A, pp. 7-                                headers or footers in tab-delimited or   spreadsheet files should not have hard-
                    8.                                                   native format data files, and whether    keyed headers or footers, as they
                                                                         this requirement is applicable to        disrupt the analysis and manipulation
                                                                         headers and footers created by text      of the contents. The instruction is
                                                                         programs such as Word.                   not relevant for text files, where the
                                                                                word processor normally manages
                                                                                headers and footers separate from the
                                                                                text content.
15...............  EEI, p. 14 PJM, p. 3..  17.........................  EEI notes that the last sentence is in   EEI is correct, the last sentence
                                                                         error and should be deleted; whereas     should be struck. This moots PJM's
                                                                         PJM is concerned about the               concern.
                                                                         implications this instruction may have
                                                                         with regard to access to its internal
                                                                         data.
16...............  EEI, p. 14 INGAA, App.  28.d.......................  Clarify the use and appearance of        The Commission clarifies that parties
                    A, p. 5-6.                                           hyperlinks in an electronic document,    may not use hyperlinks as a means to
                                                                         and whether their use will result in a   include items as part of the record
                                                                         rejection of the filing.                 they intend to rely upon. Hyperlinks
                                                                                may be used as part of citations, and
                                                                                word processor conversions into
                                                                                hyperlinks were not the focus of this
                                                                                instruction.
17...............  INGAA, App. A, p. 3...  passim.....................  INGAA notes that the Commission's Part   While beyond the scope of this
                                                                         154 electronic document instructions     proceeding, INGAA should contact the
                                                                         date from 1977[sic]. INGAA requests      Secretary with a list of suggested
                                                                         that those instructions be updated to    changes and procedures.
                                                                         reflect some of the flexibility
                                                                         offered by the new general
                                                                         instructions for electronic documents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-22799 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50446-50447]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20391]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0153(b); FRL-9717-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
Knoxville; Fine Particulate Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 annual fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Tennessee on April 4, 2008. The emissions inventory is part of
Tennessee's April 4, 2008, attainment demonstration SIP revision that
was submitted to meet the section 172(c) Clean Air Act requirements
related to the Knoxville nonattainment area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards. The Knoxville
nonattainment area is comprised of Anderson, Blount, Knox and Loudon
Counties in their entireties and a portion of Roane County that
includes the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant. This
action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 20,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0153, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0153,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official

hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-8726. Mr. Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document
should do so at this time.

    Dated: August 7, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-20391 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13319-13320]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2013-0950]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0019,
Alternative Compliance for International and Inland Navigation Rules--
33 CFR Parts 81 through 89. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before April
9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2013-0950] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., STOP 7710, Washington DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Smith, Office of Information
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of

Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate
comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the
Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA
determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2013-0950], and must be received by April 9,
2014. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2013-0950]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2013-0950'' in the
``Search'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Search'' box insert ``USCG-2013-0950'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0019.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (78 FR 74155, December 10,
2013) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Alternative Compliance for International and Inland
Navigation Rules--33 CFR Parts 81 through 89.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0019.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Vessel owners, operators, builders and agents.
    Abstract: The information collected provides an opportunity for an
owner, operator, builder, or agent of a unique vessel to present their
reasons why the vessel cannot comply with existing International/Inland
Navigation Rules and how alternative compliance can be achieved. If
appropriate, a Certificate of Alternative Compliance is issued.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 50 hours
to 230 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number
of responses.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: March 4, 2014.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-05103 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P