consumption; no sub-metering would be required. However, ISO-NE notes
that, if this approach resulted in greater participation of distributed
electric storage resources, it could require advanced metering
infrastructure and software to manage settlement.
    319. Other commenters state that direct metering is necessary to
allow an RTO/ISO to distinguish between wholesale and retail
services.\384\ Although perhaps inadequate for distribution-
interconnected electric storage resources, TAPS contends that revenue-
quality metering will be needed. Maryland and New Jersey Commissions
state that it is important to install specialized metering devices and
telemetry to distinguish the intended uses of energy used to charge a
behind-the-meter electric storage resource, which will help to ensure
that these resources do not receive inappropriate compensation or avoid
paying retail rates. PJM Market Monitor recommends that generation and
storage facilities that seek to buy or sell at wholesale LMP locate in
front of the retail meter and require them to have their own meters and
telemetry that would link them to the RTO/ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \384\ See Maryland and New Jersey Commissions Comments at 4; PJM
Market Monitor Comments at 9; TAPS Comments at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    320. Some commenters comment on technical aspects of developing
metering and accounting practices to distinguish between wholesale and
retail activities.\385\ IRC and ISO-NE contend that rules are needed to
address circumstances in which the use of stored energy is unclear at
the time of charging. Stem asks the Commission to affirm that metering
and accounting practices established by the RTO/ISO for behind-the-
meter electric storage resources that inject energy onto the grid would
be for the sole purpose of proper settlement of wholesale sale of
energy to electric storage resources without implications for a host
customer's retail bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \385\ See IRC Comments at 3; ISO-NE Comments at 27; Stem
Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    321. Duke Energy believes that the Commission should encourage
RTOs/ISOs to develop measurement and verification requirements to
examine a resource's performance against its scheduled output.\386\
FirstLight suggests that the RTO/ISO may be able to correct problems
after-the-fact with telemetered state of charge for each storage asset
location.\387\ Finally, Minnesota Energy Storage Alliance asks the
Commission to contemplate the appropriateness of adapting the Uniform
System of Accounts to handle costs associated with charging electricity
used for retail services when those resources are also providing
wholesale services, which the Commission declined to do under a SoCal
Edison request for clarification under Order No. 784.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ See Duke Energy Comments at 4.
    \387\ See FirstLight Comments at 12.
    \388\ See Minnesota Energy Storage Alliance Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    322. Upon consideration of the comments, and to help implement the
new requirement in section 35.28(g)(9)(ii) of the Commission's
regulations, we require each RTO/ISO to implement metering and
accounting practices as needed to address the complexities of
implementing the requirement that the sale of electric energy from the
RTO/ISO markets to an electric storage resource that the resource then
resells back to those markets be at the wholesale LMP. To help
accomplish this, we require each RTO/ISO to directly meter electric
storage resources, so all the energy entering and exiting the resources
is measured by that meter. However, we recognize some electric storage
resources (such as those located on a distribution system or behind a
customer meter) may be subject to other metering requirements that
could be used in lieu of a direct metering requirement by an RTO/ISO.
Therefore, the Commission will consider, in the individual RTO/ISO
compliance filings, alternative proposals that may not entail direct
metering but nonetheless address the complexities of implementing the
requirement that the sale of electric energy from the RTO/ISO markets
to a resource using the participation model for electric storage
resources that the resource then resells back to those markets be at
the wholesale LMP.
    323. We are not persuaded by commenters who argue that developing
metering practices that distinguish between wholesale and retail
activity is impractically complex. CAISO provides two examples of how
it has achieved market rules that accurately account for wholesale and
retail activities by using direct metering. Additionally, retail
metering infrastructure, which is subject to state jurisdiction, may be
able to work in concert with the RTO/ISO requirements to lower the
overall metering costs for electric storage resources. Therefore, we
provide each RTO/ISO with the flexibility to propose in its compliance
filing other reasonable metering solutions that may help reduce costs
for developers.
    324. Developing new accounting practices for electric storage
resources in response to this requirement will be complex, but we
nonetheless find that they are feasible to develop. We recognize that
it may be beneficial for each RTO/ISO to coordinate accounting
requirements in cooperation with the distribution utilities and
relevant electric retail regulatory authorities in its footprint to
help identify workable accounting solutions for distribution-
interconnected or behind-the-meter electric storage resources to
participate in the RTO/ISO markets. While the data obtained from
directly metering a resource may be adequate to establish the necessary
accounting practices, there may also be other reasonable approaches to
address these concerns depending on local retail regulatory
requirements, such as allowing the customer to be a direct wholesale
market participant as suggested by ISO-NE. We also find that metering
and accounting rules may need to differ based on whether the resource
is located on the transmission system, the distribution system, or
behind the meter. These unique considerations underscore the need to
provide the RTOs/ISOs flexibility to comply with this requirement.

    325. We are not persuaded by APPA/NRECA's and TAPS' suggestion that
electric storage resources must choose to participate in either
wholesale or retail markets due to the complexity of the metering and
accounting practices. It is possible for electric storage resources
that are selling retail services also to be technically capable of
providing wholesale services, and it would adversely affect competition
in the RTO/ISO markets if these technically capable resources were
excluded from participation.
    326. With respect to Stem's concerns regarding double payment for
the same charging energy, we find that resources using the
participation model for electric storage resources should not be
required to pay both the wholesale and retail price for the same
charging energy because it would create market inefficiencies due to
the double payment. Therefore, we require each RTO/ISO to prevent
resources using the participation model for electric storage resources
from paying twice for the same charging energy. To the extent that the
host distribution utility is unable--due to a lack of the necessary
metering infrastructure and accounting practices--or unwilling to net
out any energy purchases associated with a resource using the
participation model for electric storage resources' wholesale charging
activities from the host customer's retail bill, the RTO/ISO would be
prevented from charging that resource using the participation model for
electric storage resources electric wholesale rates for the charging
energy for which it is already paying retail rates.
    327. We decline Stem's request to clarify that metering and
accounting practices established by the RTO/ISO for behind-the-meter
electric storage resources that inject energy onto the grid would be
for the sole purpose of proper settlement of wholesale sale of energy
to electric storage resources without implications for a host
customer's retail bill. We also decline Stem's request that metering
and accounting practices established by the RTOs/ISOs be for the sole
purpose of proper settlement of wholesale sale of energy. We recognize
that each RTO/ISO may need to coordinate these metering and accounting
practices with the distribution utilities and relevant electric retail
regulatory authorities. Therefore, we will not place limitations on the
extent to which the hardware being used to collect information or the
information itself can be shared as this may help reduce costs for the
electric storage resources and burdens on RTOs/ISOs, distribution
utilities, or relevant electric retail regulatory authorities.
    328. With respect to Minnesota Energy Storage Alliance's request to
modify the Uniform System of Accounts, we are not persuaded that it is
necessary to address costs associated with charging energy used for
retail-level services when those resources are also participating in
the RTO/ISO markets. Account 555.1 Power Purchased for Storage
Operations, which was created in Order No. 784,\389\ already allows for
the reporting of power purchased and stored for resale and any services
provided by an electric storage resource, whether wholesale or retail,
would be considered a resale.\390\ Accordingly, to the extent that a
given electric storage resource subject to the Uniform System of
Accounts is approved by relevant authorities to provide both retail and
wholesale services, the cost of the charging energy used for providing
both retail and wholesale services can already be accommodated by
Account 555.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \389\ Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services; Accounting
and Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, Order
No. 784, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,349 (2013), order on
clarification, Order No. 784-A, 146 FERC ] 61,114 (2014).
    \390\ See 18 CFR Pt. 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Issues Outside the Scope of This Final Rule

1. Comments
    329. Some commenters raise issues that were not addressed in the
NOPR. Many raised issues with respect to compensation or cost recovery
under a Policy Statement that the Commission issued in January
2017.\391\ Other commenters raised issues with respect to expanding the
scope of the rule to apply to resources outside of the RTOs/ISOs; \392\
whether to revise RTO/ISO interconnection procedures for electric
storage resources; \393\ price formation or additional services the
Commission should require the RTOs/ISOs to develop; \394\ market-based
rates; \395\ co-optimization models; \396\ how the RTO/ISO dispute
resolution processes apply to electric storage resources and other new
market entrants; \397\ whether to incorporate electric storage
resources into transmission planning; \398\ whether the RTOs/ISOs
should modify their unit commitment or settlement periods \399\ and
other settlement rules; \400\ RTO/ISO governance issues; \401\ removing
barriers to other types of resources; \402\ varying compensation based
on resource characteristics; \403\ requiring the RTOs/ISOs to
compensate resources for providing certain non-market services that
they are not compensated for providing today; \404\ addressing issues
in specific RTO/ISO markets; \405\ modifications to existing energy
management systems communications infrastructure; \406\ whether to
allow shaping of capacity and energy offers to reflect a resource's
capabilities; \407\ the submission of multiple bid stacks; \408\ and
bids for dispatchable load coupled with offers for generation at a
later time.\409\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \391\ See Utilization of Electric Storage Resources for Multiple
Services When Receiving Cost-Based Rate Recovery, 158 FERC ] 61,051
(2017). See, e.g., APPA/NRECA Comments at 4-5; EPSA/PJM Power
Providers Comments at 13-16; 10; FirstLight Comments at 1-2, 4-5;
Pacific Gas & Electric Comments at 14.
    \392\ See, e.g., AWEA Comments at 6; SEIA Comments at 13-15.
    \393\ See, e.g., AWEA Comments at 8; Organization of MISO States
Comments at 2-3; Power Applications Comments at 8.
    \394\ See, e.g., Brookfield Renewable Comments at 2-4; NRG
Comments at 19; NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners Comments at 4-5;
Organization of MISO States Comments at 3; Tesla/SolarCity Comments
at 8-10.
    \395\ See AWEA Comments at 6.
    \396\ See Mosaic Power Comments at 4.
    \397\ See SEIA Comments at 8-10.
    \398\ See National Hydropower Association Comments at 5-6.
    \399\ See, e.g., AWEA Comments at 7; NextEra Comments at 7-8;
Research Scientists Comments, Att. 2 at 280, Att. 12 at 290.
    \400\ See Guannan He Comments at 1-4.
    \401\ See E4TheFuture Comments, Att. at 2.
    \402\ See AWEA Comments at 4-5.
    \403\ See Energy Storage Association Comments at 19, 27-28.
    \404\ See, e.g., Advanced Energy Economy Comments at 29-31; AES
Companies Comments at 16; National Hydropower Association Comments
at 7-8; San Diego Water Comments at 3-4.
    \405\ See Advanced Microgrid Solutions Comments at 11-13;
Advanced Rail Energy Storage Comments at 4-7; Advanced Energy
Management Comments at 31-33.
    \406\ See Power Applications Comments at 8.
    \407\ See Fluidic Comments at 4-5.
    \408\ See California Energy Storage Alliance Comments at 12-13.
    \409\ See Eagle Crest Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    330. Commenters also raise issues related to the reform of existing
wholesale services to change their technical requirements and product
definitions; \410\ exploring whether the RTOs/ISOs are appropriately
valuing market services (such as frequency regulation service); \411\
and requiring a reverse demand response or load increase product.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \410\ See Alevo Comments at 8-10; Energy Storage Association
Comments at 9; NextEra Comments at 6-9; R Street Institute Comments
at 5.
    \411\ See, e.g., Brookfield Renewable Comments at 2-4; National
Hydropower Association Comments at 7-8; NYPA Comments at 4-5; San
Diego Water Comments at 3-4.
    \412\ See National Hydropower Association Comments at 11.

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

2. Commission Determination
    331. We find that the NOPR did not propose reforms related to these
issues raised by commenters. Therefore, these issues are outside the
scope of this proceeding and will not be addressed here.

V. Compliance Requirements

A. NOPR Proposal

    332. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require each RTO/ISO
to submit a compliance filing to demonstrate that it satisfies the
proposed requirements set forth in the Final Rule within six months of
the date the Final Rule in this proceeding is published in the Federal
Register.\413\ The Commission stated that, while it believed that six
months would be sufficient for each RTO/ISO to develop and submit its
compliance filing, it recognized that implementation of the reforms
proposed therein could take more time due to the changes that may be
necessary to each RTO's/ISO's modeling and dispatch software.
Therefore, the Commission proposed to allow 12 months from the date of
the compliance filing for implementation of the proposed reforms to
become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \413\ NOPR at P 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    333. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment from the RTOs/ISOs
on the changes that would be required to implement the proposed
participation model for electric storage resources and the associated
costs as well as how those costs could be minimized.\414\ The
Commission sought comment on the time and resources that would be
necessary for the RTOs/ISOs to incorporate these bidding parameters,
including the optional bidding parameters, into their modeling and
dispatch software.\415\ The Commission sought comment on the proposed
deadline for each RTO/ISO to submit its compliance filing, as well as
the proposed deadline for each RTO's/ISO's implementation of the
proposed reforms to become effective.\416\ Specifically, the Commission
sought comment on whether the proposed compliance and implementation
timeline would allow sufficient time for each RTO/ISO to implement
changes to its technological systems and business processes in response
to a Final Rule. The Commission also sought comment on whether the
RTOs/ISOs would require more or less time to implement certain reforms
versus others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \414\ See id. P 32.
    \415\ See id. P 71.
    \416\ See id. P 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    334. The Commission stated that, to the extent that any RTO/ISO
believes that it already complies with any of the requirements adopted
in a Final Rule in this proceeding, the RTO/ISO would be required to
demonstrate how it complies in the filing due within six months of the
date any Final Rule in this proceeding is published in the Federal
Register.\417\ The Commission also stated that the proposed
implementation deadline would apply only to the extent that an RTO/ISO
does not already comply with the reforms proposed in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \417\ See id. P 161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    335. A few commenters support the timeline proposed in the
NOPR.\418\ For example, Energy Storage Association and NRG support the
Commission's proposed implementation timeline. Public Interest
Organizations also support finalizing the proposed rules as scheduled
but adds that, if more time is needed, the Commission should allow the
RTOs/ISOs more time to develop their compliance filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \418\ See Energy Storage Association Comments at 26-27; NRG
Comments at 21-22; Public Interest Organizations Comments at n.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    336. Other commenters, such as the RTOs/ISOs, generally express
concerns about the feasibility of the Commission's proposed
timelines.\419\ NYISO argues that the proposed filing deadline of six
months after a final rule and another six months for implementation do
not appear to be feasible. Based on the comprehensive review of
electric storage resource participation that NYISO is conducting in its
own region, it asserts that the compliance deadline should not be
before the end of 2018 and implementation should not be required until
the end of 2021. MISO requests that the Commission give it time to
understand the system impacts of various integration options, noting,
for example, that changing the minimum size to 100 kW could tax systems
beyond current capabilities. SPP points out that the proposed
participation model for electric storage resources will require
extensive changes to software, the tariff, and market protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \419\ ISO-NE Comments at 21; MISO Comments at 10; NYISO Comments
at 21; PJM Comments at 17 (citing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Order
No. 825 Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER17-775-000, at 2 (Jan. 11,
2017)); SPP Comments at 5. PJM states that it will propose an
effective date for implementing hourly offers by March 6, 2017,
which it expects to be sometime around November 1, 2017. PJM
Comments at n.23 (citing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 158 FERC ]
61,133, at P 126 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    337. PJM and ISO-NE state that the timeline depends upon the
magnitude of the required changes. PJM states that it can implement the
necessary system changes in approximately 12 months at a cost of under
$1 million if (1) the final rule is limited to changes in PJM's real-
time energy market and to offers to sell energy and (2) if PJM does not
need to manage electric storage resources' state of charge. However,
PJM asserts that, if more extensive system changes are necessary to
comply, the cost could be significantly higher and will likely take
more time to implement. PJM also states that, given the timing of PJM's
upcoming implementations of 5-minute settlements and hourly offers, it
could not realistically begin working on the necessary system changes
until at least early 2018. ISO-NE states that the changes contemplated
in the NOPR are substantial but that the time and resources needed to
comply with the final rule depend on the specific final provisions.
ISO-NE argues that, if the Commission accepts ISO-NE's suggestions to
(1) only require implementation of state of charge in real time as an
information communication requirement (for example, via telemetered
information), (2) not require implementation of the proposed voluntary
bidding parameters, and (3) require participants to manage their own
bidding parameters (except when reliability needs dictate otherwise),
then the implementation effort will be substantially shorter and
easier.
    338. Some commenters also point out that, in order to comply with
the rule, the RTOs/ISOs will need to change more than just their market
rules. For example, AES Companies, Energy Storage Association, and EPRI
note that the RTOs/ISOs will need to make changes to their
software.\420\ AES Companies also note that RTOs/ISOs will have to
adjust their business practice manuals to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \420\ AES Companies Comments at 5, 14-15; Energy Storage
Association Comments at n.8, 26-27; EPRI Comments 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    339. Multiple commenters argue that the Commission should take a
phased approach to its proposed compliance and implementation
timelines.\421\ For example, NextEra suggests that the Commission
finalize proposed reforms related to both the electric storage resource
and distributed energy resource aggregation resources, while extending
the distributed energy resource aggregation requirements to

allow further time to work through issues. NextEra states that the
Commission could stage compliance deadlines with electric storage
resource tariff revisions being submitted within six months of a final
rule and aggregation tariff revisions being due 12 months after a final
rule. NextEra asserts that, if the Commission determines additional
consideration needs to be given to the aggregation-related issues, the
Commission should finalize the storage related revisions now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \421\ See FirstLight Comments at 14; MISO Comments at 11;
NextEra Comments at 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    340. MISO suggests that the Commission allow RTOs/ISOs to integrate
electric storage resources using a phased approach. MISO explains that
electric storage resources can be accommodated in the short term
through the RTO's/ISO's existing system or with relatively manageable
modifications but argues that, in the long-term, the further
integration of electric storage resources should be pursued through
joint study of an RTO's/ISO's market design and system enhancements.
FirstLight also argues that, because the proposal includes changes to
RTO/ISO bidding, dispatch, pricing and settlement software, the
Commission should allow each RTO/ISO to address the phasing of market
development and implementation efforts related to any final rule.
    341. Several other commenters argue that the Commission should
allow the RTOs/ISOs to develop their own implementation schedules.\422\
CAISO, IRC, NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners, and PJM argue that the
Commission should permit each affected RTO/ISO to propose an
implementation schedule for various aspects of the final rule. CAISO
states that it does not oppose the Commission setting a compliance and
implementation timeframe but suggests that a better approach would be
to direct the RTO/ISOs to establish independent timelines in their
compliance filings. PJM states that allowing RTOs/ISOs to propose
implementation schedules is preferable to the Commission setting firm
deadlines that may lead to requests for waivers. IRC recommends that
the final rule should require each RTO/ISO to file an implementation
plan and schedule with the Commission within 180 days. IRC states that
the implementation plan and schedule should be subject to notice and
comment and not necessarily limited to 12 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \422\ See CAISO Comments at 53; IRC Comments at 11-12; NYISO
Indicated Transmission Owners Comments at 20; PJM Comments at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    342. NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners state that the Commission
should not set unrealistic goals for the participation of distributed
energy resource aggregations in wholesale markets before the grid has
the needed technological capabilities.\423\ Therefore, NYISO Indicated
Transmission Owners oppose the Commission's proposal to make the
compliance filing due in six months with full implementation 12 months
thereafter. Instead, NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners request that
each RTO/ISO be allowed to utilize the stakeholder process to establish
a timeline for implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \423\ See NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners Comments at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    343. Xcel Energy Services also expresses concerns that the
implementation timeline is too aggressive, stating that that Commission
should further evaluate whether the technological capability exists to
fully implement the NOPR requirements and, if not, what timeline is
needed to ensure that such functionality can be developed.\424\ Xcel
Energy Services contends that the requirements of the NOPR and the
implementation timeline must be tailored to fit within achievable
technological capabilities. Xcel Energy Services states that the RTOs/
ISOs and their stakeholders should be permitted to propose alternate
implementation timelines that allow higher priority regional projects
to move forward before the software updates needed under the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \424\ See Xcel Energy Services Comments at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    344. In contrast to other commenters, Advanced Microgrid Solutions
argues that the proposed compliance and implementation timeline will
take 18 months and therefore not promptly end unduly discriminatory
rules and practices and will impose on-going burdens on the storage
industry.\425\ Advanced Microgrid Solutions argues that compliance
plans should be filed within 90 days and specify the earliest possible
implementation date for each compliance action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \425\ See Advanced Microgrid Solutions Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    345. Multiple entities discuss the proposed bidding parameters,
including state of charge, in relation to the proposed timeline for
compliance.\426\ MISO states that managing state of charge would
require costly investments and upgrades, noting that in some cases it
may not be technically feasible for large volumes of electric storage
resources. CAISO states that it will require at least 24 months to
design and incorporate bidding parameters that account for all physical
operating parameters (such as state of charge) into its modeling and
dispatch software, which would require stakeholder discussions, market
design work, and implementation testing. CAISO further explains that
this directive would be inconsistent with how CAISO models other
resources in its markets and asks that the Commission direct RTOs/ISOs
to account for the physical operating constraints of resource in their
market modeling and dispatch software and require them to explain how
they do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \426\ See AES Companies Comments at 23; CAISO Comments at 12;
EPRI Comments at 12; MISO Comments at 10; Tesla/SolarCity Comments
at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    346. AES Companies similarly explain that time, resources, and
capital costs can be minimized if all energy storage resources managed
their own state of charge. EPRI notes that, assuming that the
Commission does not require the RTOs/ISOs to manage state-of-charge of
electric storage resources (which some already do), there would only be
minimal changes to the bidding interface, market clearing, or
settlement software. EPRI states that the large change absent RTOs/ISOs
having to manage state of charge will be allowing electric storage
resources to offer as an injector and withdrawer of energy in the same
market interval but for the market clearing software to only allow
acceptance of one or the other. Tesla/SolarCity state that bidding
parameters should reflect storage resources state of charge and be
included in the unit commitment and economic dispatch optimization
algorithms of each RTO/ISO. Tesla/SolarCity believe that storage
resources should manage their own state of charge or have the choice
between relying on RTO/ISO estimates or self-managing. In contrast to
other commenters, Tesla/SolarCity assert that the time and resources
necessary to incorporate these bidding parameters into the dispatch
software should be minimal and are justified given the increased
efficiency of markets and operations.
    347. NEPOOL raises regional issues.\427\ NEPOOL encourages the
Commission to ensure that any final rule includes sufficient
flexibility to allow the region to implement the requirements while
also achieving the other regional priorities in ISO-NE's Work Plan for
2017-2018. Specifically, NEPOOL urges that the final rule take into
account market rules that are currently being implemented in the region
to eliminate barriers to the entry of electric storage resources into
wholesale markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \427\ See NEPOOL Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    348. Upon consideration of the comments, we find that it is
reasonable

to provide the RTOs/ISOs additional time to submit their proposed
tariff revisions in response to the Final Rule, given that the changes
could require significant work on the part of the RTOs/ISOs. We find
that shorter timeframes proposed by commenters such as Advanced
Microgrid Solutions would not provide the RTO/ISOs with sufficient time
to implement the required reforms. Taking into account that the
Commission is not implementing the distributed energy resource
aggregation reforms at this time, we require each RTO/ISO to file the
tariff changes needed to implement the requirements of this Final Rule
within 270 days of the publication date of this Final Rule in the
Federal Register. We will continue to allow each RTO/ISO a further 365
days from that date to implement the tariff provisions.
    349. We find that, given the modifications and clarifications to
the NOPR we make in this Final Rule and the record in this proceeding
in support of the reforms we finalize here, our implementation schedule
is reasonable. Commenters highlight that managing state of charge will
complicate or delay implementation, and we note that we are not
requiring the RTOs/ISOs to manage state of charge. Further, some
commenters also provide feedback on the implementation of the entire
NOPR and indicate that implementing only the storage components would
expedite compliance and implementation. We are not establishing any
requirements for distributed energy resource aggregations as part of
this Final Rule. Given the additional time we are providing for each
RTO/ISO to file proposed tariff revisions to comply with this Final
Rule, we believe that the compliance and implementation schedule that
we establish in this Final Rule is appropriate. As a consequence, we
are not persuaded that more than 365 days after the RTOs/ISOs are
required to submit their proposed tariff revisions will be necessary to
implement the reforms in this Final Rule; therefore, we decline to
adopt commenters' other proposed recommendations, such as allowing the
RTO/ISOs to develop their own implementation schedules. We disagree
with Xcel Energy Services' argument that the Commission needs to
further evaluate whether the technological capability exists to fully
implement the NOPR requirements, especially as we are not finalizing in
this Final Rule the distributed energy resource aggregation reforms
proposed in the NOPR.
    350. Additionally, we note that many of the RTOs/ISOs already have
rules in place to enable the participation of electric storage
resources in their markets. To the extent that an RTO/ISO proposes to
comply with certain requirements of this Final Rule using existing
market rules, it must demonstrate on compliance how its existing market
rules meet the requirements of this Final Rule. We expect that the
additional time that we are providing for the RTOs/ISOs to make their
compliance filings, along with the ability of the RTOs/ISOs to use
existing tariff provisions to demonstrate compliance with aspects of
the Final Rule, will mean that the RTOs/ISOs can meet the deadlines
that we are establishing here. Finally, we also note that, throughout
this Final Rule, we are allowing regional flexibility to the extent
possible. We believe that this flexibility will assist the RTOs/ISOs in
meeting the compliance and implementation deadlines.

VI. Information Collection Statement

    351. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is
being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\428\
OMB's regulations,\429\ in turn, require approval of certain
information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon
approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB
control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the
filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to
respond to the collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \428\ See 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \429\ 5 CFR pt. 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Reporting Burden: In this Final Rule, we are not adopting
any of the proposed reforms in the NOPR related to distributed energy
resource aggregations and are modifying some of the requirements
related to the participation model for electric storage resources.
Thus, we are revising the estimated public reporting burden and cost
from the NOPR \430\ based on these changes. The estimated burden and
cost for the requirements contained in this Final Rule follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \430\ The burden estimates for the NOPR in Docket No. RM16-23-
000 were submitted to OMB under FERC-516 (OMB Control No. 1902-0096,
in ICR<PHONE_NUMBER>-005). There is another unrelated item affecting
FERC-516 which will also be pending OMB review. Because only one
item per OMB Control No. can be pending OMB review at a time, the
reporting requirements in this Final Rule in RM16-23-000 will be
submitted to OMB under a new collection number, FERC-516H.
    \431\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided
in this section is based on the salary figures for May 2016 posted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the Utilities sector (at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits
information for September 2017 (issued 12/15/2017, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The hourly estimates for
salary plus benefits are: (a) Legal (code 23-0000), $143.68; (b)
Computer and mathematical (code 15-0000), $60.70; (c) Computer and
information systems manager (code 11-3021), $100.68; (d) Information
security analyst (code 15-1122), $66.34; (e) Auditing and accounting
(code 13-2011), $53.00; (f) Information and record clerk (code 43-
4199), $39.14; (g) Electrical Engineer (code 17-2071), $68.12; (h)
Economist (code 19-3011), $77.96; and (i) Management (code 11-0000),
$81.52. The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits), weighting
all of these skill sets evenly, is $76.79. The Commission rounds it
to $77 per hour.
    \432\ The one-time tariff filing is due within 270 days of the
publication date of the Final Rule in the Federal Register.
    \433\ Respondent entities are either RTOs or ISOs.

                                       FERC-516H, as Implemented in the Final Rule in Docket No. RM16-23-000 \431\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                                              Total annual burden
                                          Number of     of responses    Total number    Average burden (hours)    hours and total annual     Cost per
                                         respondents   per respondent   of responses     and cost per response             cost           respondent ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) x (2) =  (4).....................  (3) x (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-Time Tariff Filing \432\.........         \433\ 6               1               6  1,500 hrs; $115,500.....  9,000 hrs; $693,000....        $115,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-516H, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings (in
Final Rule in Docket Nos. RM16-23-000 and AD16-20-000).
    Action: Proposed information collection.
    OMB Control No.: To be determined.
    Respondents for This Rulemaking: RTOs and ISOs.
    Frequency of Information: One-time.

    Necessity of Information: The Commission implements this Final Rule
to eliminate barriers to electric storage resource participation in the
RTO/ISO markets.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the changes and has
determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements conform
to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements.
    352. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director] Email: [email protected];
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    353. Comments concerning the collection of information and the
associated burden estimate(s) may also be sent to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
    354. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent
electronically to the following email address:
[email protected]. Comments submitted to OMB should refer to
FERC-516H and OMB Control No. To be determined.

VII. Environmental Analysis

    355. 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.\434\ We
conclude that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental
Impact Statement is required for this Final Rule under section
380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's regulations, which provides a
categorical exemption for approval of actions under sections 205 and
206 of the FPA relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates
and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to
the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices,
contracts and regulations that affect rates, charges, classifications,
and services.\435\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \434\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC
Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \435\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    356. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \436\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rules that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a rule and that minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards
develops the numerical definition of a small business.\437\ The small
business size standards are provided in 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \436\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \437\ 13 CFR 121.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    357. Under the SBA classification, the six RTOs/ISOs would be
considered electric bulk power transmission and control, for which the
small business size threshold is 500 or fewer employees.\438\ Because
each RTO/ISO has more than 500 employees, none are considered small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \438\ 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22, Utilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    358. Furthermore, because of their pivotal roles in wholesale
electric power markets in their regions, none of the RTOs/ISOs meet the
last criterion of the two-part RFA definition of a small entity: ``Not
dominant in its field of operation.'' \439\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \439\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. The
Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 define
the threshold for a small Electric Bulk Power Transmission and
Control entity (NAICS code 221121) to be 500 employees. See 5 U.S.C.
601(3) (citing to section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    359. The estimated cost related to this Final Rule includes: (a)
Preparing and making a one-time tariff filing ($115,500 per entity, as
detailed in the Information Collection section above), and (b) updating
the economic dispatch software. Revisions to the economic dispatch
software are due to be implemented within 365 days after the due date
of the tariff filing. We estimate the one-time software work will take
1,500 hours with an approximate cost of $114,000 per entity.\440\
Therefore the total estimated one-time cost for the tariff filing and
software work is $229,500 per entity (or $115,500 + $114,000); the
total estimated one-time industry cost is $1,377,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \440\ Based on the BLS data, the hourly estimates (for wages
plus benefits) related to updating the software are: (a) Computer
and mathematical (code 15-0000), $60.70; (b) Computer and
information systems manager (code 11-3021), $100.68; (c) Information
security analyst (code 15-1122), $66.34; (d) Electrical Engineer
(code 17-2071), $68.12; (e) Economist (code 19-3011), $77.96; and
(f) Management (code 11-0000), $81.52. We estimate these skill sets
are equally involved in updating the software. The hourly average is
$75.89, so we will round to $76 per hour.
    We estimate a total of 1,500 hours per entity to develop and
implement the software changes, so the related cost is estimated to
be $114,000 per entity ($76/hour x 1,500 hours). The one-time
industry-wide cost is $684,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    360. As a result, we certify that the reforms required by this
Final Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and therefore no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

IX. Document Availability

    361. 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 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    362. 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 of this document, excluding the last three digits, in
the docket number field.
    363. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].

X. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    364. This Final Rule will become effective on June 4, 2018. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in
section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and
Government Accountability Office.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: February 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Regulatory Text

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 35
Chapter 1, Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  35.28 by adding paragraph (b)(9) and revising paragraph
(g)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  35.28   Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) Electric storage resource as used in this section means a
resource capable of receiving electric energy from the grid and storing
it for later injection of electric energy back to the grid.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
* * * * *
    (9) Electric storage resources.
    (i) Each Commission-approved independent system operator and
regional transmission organization must have tariff provisions
providing a participation model for electric storage resources that:
    (A) Ensures that a resource using the participation model for
electric storage resources in an independent system operator or
regional transmission organization market is eligible to provide all
capacity, energy, and ancillary services that it is technically capable
of providing;
    (B) Ensures that a resource using the participation model for
electric storage resources can be dispatched and can set the wholesale
market clearing price as both a wholesale seller and wholesale buyer
consistent with rules that govern the conditions under which a resource
can set the wholesale price;
    (C) Accounts for the physical and operational characteristics of
electric storage resources through bidding parameters or other means;
and
    (D) Establishes a minimum size requirement for resources using the
participation model for electric storage resources that does not exceed
100 kW.
    (ii) The sale of electric energy from an independent system
operator or regional transmission organization market to an electric
storage resource that the resource then resells back to that market
must be at the wholesale locational marginal price.

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

Appendix A: Abbreviated Names of Commenters

    The following table contains the abbreviated names of the
commenters that are used in this Final Rule.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Abbreviation                    Commenter (full name)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Energy Economy................  Advanced Energy Economy.
Advanced Energy Management.............  Advanced Energy Management
                                          Alliance.
Advanced Microgrid Solutions...........  Advanced Microgrid Solutions,
                                          Inc.
Advanced Rail Energy Storage...........  Advanced Rail Energy Storage,
                                          LLC.
AES Companies..........................  AES Companies.
Alevo..................................  Alevo USA Inc.
Altametric.............................  Altametric LLC.
Amanda Drabek..........................  Amanda Drabek, Pantsuit Nation
                                          of East Texas.
American Petroleum Institute...........  American Petroleum Institute.
APPA/NRECA.............................  American Public Power
                                          Association and National Rural
                                          Electric Cooperative
                                          Association.
Avangrid...............................  AVANGRID, Inc.
AWEA...................................  American Wind Energy
                                          Association.
Beacon Power...........................  Beacon Power, LLC.
Benjamin Kingston......................  Benjamin D. Kingston.
Bonneville.............................  Bonneville Power
                                          Administration.
Brookfield Renewable...................  Brookfield Renewable.
CAISO..................................  California Independent System
                                          Operator Corporation.
California Commission..................  Public Utilities Commission of
                                          the State of California.
California Energy Storage Alliance.....  California Energy Storage
                                          Alliance.
California Municipals..................  California Municipal Utilities
                                          Association (incorporated by
                                          reference APPA/NRECA's
                                          comments).
Center for Biological Diversity........  Center for Biological
                                          Diversity.
City of New York.......................  City of New York.
Connecticut State Entities.............  Bureau of Energy and Technology
                                          Policy of the Connecticut
                                          Department of Energy and
                                          Environmental Protection and
                                          the Connecticut Public
                                          Utilities Regulatory Authority
                                          (incorporated by reference
                                          NESCOE comments).
Delaware Commission....................  Delaware Public Service
                                          Commission.
DER/Storage Developers.................  DER and Storage Developers.
Dominion...............................  Dominion Resources Services,
                                          Inc. (supports EEI's
                                          comments).
DTE Electric/Consumers Energy..........  DTE Electric Company and
                                          Consumers Energy Company.
Duke Energy............................  Duke Energy Corporation
                                          (supports EEI's comments).
E4TheFuture............................  E4TheFuture.
Eagle Crest............................  Eagle Crest Energy Company.
EEI....................................  Edison Electric Institute.
Efficient Holdings.....................  Efficient Holdings, LLC.
ELCON..................................  Electricity Consumers Resource
                                          Council.
Electric Vehicle R&D Group.............  EV R&D Group, University of
                                          Delaware.
Energy Storage Association.............  Energy Storage Association.
EPRI...................................  Electric Power Research
                                          Institute.
EPSA/PJM Power Providers...............  Electric Power Supply
                                          Association and PJM Power
                                          Providers Group.

Exelon.................................  Exelon Corporation.
FirstLight.............................  FirstLight Power Resources,
                                          Inc.
Fluidic................................  Fluidic Energy.
Fresh Energy/Sierra Club/Union of        Fresh Energy, the Sierra Club,
 Concerned Scientists.                    and the Union of Concerned
                                          Scientists.
Genbright..............................  Genbright LLC.
GridWise...............................  GridWise Alliance (supports
                                          some of Advanced Energy
                                          Economy's and EEI's comments).
Guannan He.............................  Guannan He.
Harvard Environmental Policy Institute.  Harvard Environmental Policy
                                          Institute.
Imperial Irrigation District...........  Imperial Irrigation District.
Independent Energy Producers             Independent Energy Producers
 Association.                             Association.
Institute for Policy Integrity.........  Institute for Policy Integrity.
IPKeys/Motorola........................  IPKeys Technologies and
                                          Motorola Solutions.
IRC....................................  ISO-RTO Council.
ISO-NE.................................  ISO New England Inc.
Kathy Seal.............................  Kathy Seal.
Liza White.............................  Liza C White.
Lyla Fadali............................  Lyla Fadali.
Magnum.................................  Magnum CAES, LLC (supports some
                                          of APPA/NRECA's and National
                                          Hydropower Association's
                                          comments).
Maryland and New Jersey Commissions....  Maryland Public Service
                                          Commission and New Jersey
                                          Board of Public Utilities.
Massachusetts State Entities...........  Massachusetts Department of
                                          Public Utilities and
                                          Massachusetts Department of
                                          Energy Resources.
Massachusetts Municipal Electric.......  Massachusetts Municipal
                                          Wholesale Electric Company.
Matthew d'Alessio......................  Matthew d'Alessio.
Mensah.................................  AF Mensah Inc.
Microgrid Resources Coalition..........  Microgrid Resources Coalition.
Minnesota Energy Storage Alliance......  Minnesota Energy Storage
                                          Alliance.
MISO...................................  Midcontinent Independent System
                                          Operator, Inc.
MISO Transmission Owners...............  MISO Transmission Owners.
Mosaic Power...........................  Mosaic Power, LLC.
NARUC..................................  National Association of
                                          Regulatory Utility
                                          Commissioners.
National Hydropower Association........  National Hydropower
                                          Association.
NEPOOL.................................  New England Power Pool.
NERC...................................  North American Electric
                                          Reliability Corporation.
NESCOE.................................  New England States Committee on
                                          Electricity.
New York State Entities................  New York Public Service
                                          Commission and New York State
                                          Energy Research and
                                          Development Authority.
New York Utility Intervention Unit.....  Utility Intervention Unit of
                                          the New York State Department
                                          of State.
NextEra................................  NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.
NRG....................................  NRG Energy, Inc.
NYISO..................................  New York Independent System
                                          Operator, Inc.
NYISO Indicated Transmission Owners....  Central Hudson Gas & Electric
                                          Corporation, Consolidated
                                          Edison Company of New York,
                                          Inc., National Grid, New York
                                          Power Authority, Orange and
                                          Rockland Utilities, Inc., and
                                          Power Supply Long Island.
NYPA...................................  New York Power Authority.
Ohio Commission........................  Public Utilities Commission of
                                          Ohio.
Open Access Technology.................  Open Access Technology
                                          International, Inc.
OpenADR................................  OpenADR Alliance.
Organization of MISO States............  Organization of MISO States.
Pacific Gas & Electric.................  Pacific Gas and Electric
                                          Company.
PJM....................................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
PJM Market Monitor.....................  Monitoring Analytics, LLC.
Power Applications.....................  Power Applications and Research
                                          Systems, Inc.
Protect Sudbury........................  Protect Sudbury.
Public Interest Organizations..........  Public Interest Organizations.
R Street Institute.....................  R Street Institute.
Research Scientists....................  Drs. Audun Botterud, Apurba
                                          Sakti, and Francis O'Sullivan.
Robert Borlick.........................  Robert L. Borlick.
San Diego Water........................  San Diego County Water
                                          Authority.
Schulte Associates.....................  Schulte Associates LLC.
SEIA...................................  Solar Energy Industries
                                          Association.
Silicon Valley Leadership Group........  Silicon Valley Leadership
                                          Group.
Six Cities.............................  Cities of Anaheim, Azusa,
                                          Banning, Colton, Pasadena, and
                                          Riverside, California.
SoCal Edison...........................  Southern California Edison
                                          Company.
SPP....................................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Starwood Energy........................  Starwood Energy Group Global,
                                          L.L.C.
Stem...................................  Stem, Inc.
Sunrun.................................  Sunrun Inc.
TAPS...................................  Transmission Access Policy
                                          Study Group.
TechNet................................  TechNet.
TeMix..................................  TeMix Inc.

Tesla/SolarCity........................  Tesla, Inc. and SolarCity
                                          Corporation.
Trans Bay..............................  Trans Bay Cable LLC.
Union of Concerned Scientists..........  Union of Concerned Scientists.
US Senators............................  Senator Cory A. Booker, Senator
                                          Edward J. Markey, Senator
                                          Bernard Sanders, Senator
                                          Elizabeth Warren, Senator
                                          Sheldon Whitehouse, and
                                          Senator Ron Wyden.
Xcel Energy Services...................  Xcel Energy Services Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-03708 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 45111-45112]
[DOCID:fr02au10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-2001-015; Docket No. ER00-167-000; Docket No. ER03-
752-000]

Electric Quarterly Reports; Strategic Energy Management Corp.;
Solaro Energy Marketing Corporation; Notice of Revocation of Market-
Based Rate Tariff

July 23, 2010.
    On June 25, 2010, the Commission issued an order announcing its
intent to revoke the market-based rate authority of the above captioned
public utilities, which had failed to file their required Electric
Quarterly Reports.\1\ The Commission provided the utilities fifteen
days in which to file their overdue Electric Quarterly Reports or face
revocation of their market-based rate tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electric Quarterly Reports, 131 FERC ] 61,272 (2010) (June
25 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its public utility filing
requirements and established a requirement for public utilities,
including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly Reports
summarizing the contractual terms and conditions in their agreements
for all jurisdictional services (including market-based power sales,
cost-based power sales, and transmission service) and providing
transaction information (including rates) for short-term and long-term
power sales during the most recent calendar quarter.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001,
67 Fed. Reg. 31,043, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127, reh'g denied,
Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074, reconsideration and
clarification denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342, order
directing filings, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002), order
directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 25 Order, the Commission directed Strategic Energy
Management Corp. and Solaro Energy Marketing Corporation to file the
required Electric Quarterly Reports within 15 days of the date of
issuance of the order or face revocation of their authority to sell
power at market-based rates and termination of their electric market-
based rate tariffs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ June 25 Order at Ordering Paragraph A.

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

    The time period for compliance with the June 25 Order has elapsed.
The two companies identified in the June 25 Order (Strategic Energy
Management Corp. and Solaro Energy Marketing Corporation) have failed
to file their delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports.
    The Commission hereby revokes the market-based rate authority and
terminates the electric market-based rate tariffs of the above-
captioned public utilities.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18840 Filed 7-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 206 (Thursday, October 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59662-59665]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0888; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00676-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series; A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -
115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N; A320 series; and A321 series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed
AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December
13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0888.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0888; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0888; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00676-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated

as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the
submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA,
International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0140, dated June 14, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0140) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-
111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-
133, A319-151N, A319-153N, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215,
A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-
253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, A320-273N, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131,
A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-
251NX, A321-252N, A321-252NX, A321-253N, A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-
271NX, A321-272N, and A321-272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes
are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability. Airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued after November 10, 2020 must comply with the
airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design
and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore
does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    EASA previously published EASA AD 2020-0036R1 (which corresponds to
FAA AD 2020-20-05, Amendment 39-21216 (85 FR 65197, October 15, 2020)
(AD 2020-20-05)) that required actions described in Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 ALS Part 2 Revision 8 issue 2. Specifically, Task 531135-03-2
was required by EASA AD 2020-0036R1. Since EASA AD 2020-0036R1 was
issued, a discrepancy was found between AMM (Aircraft Maintenance
Manual) 53-11-00-210-026-A (pre May-2019 version) and associated NTM
(Nondestructive Testing Manual) 53-11-35, which are both related to
Task 531135-03-2. EASA AD 2021-0140 invalidates (terminates) prior
instructions for Task 531135-03-2 and assigns the task a different
number (Task 531135-03-1) than the invalidated task. Accomplishing the
actions required by this proposed AD, including incorporating Task
531135-03-1, would terminate Task 531135-03-2, as required by paragraph
(i) of AD 2020-20-05.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or
corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0140 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA has
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD
2021-0140 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any
differences with EASA AD 2021-0140 are identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(k)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0140 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2021-0140 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0140 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2021-
0140. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0140 for compliance
will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0888 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to

airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation
sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under
``Other FAA Provisions.'' This new format includes a ``New Provisions
for Alternative Actions and Intervals'' paragraph that does not
specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to
use an alternative action or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,728 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0888; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00676-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by December 13, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2020-20-05, Amendment 39-21261 (85 FR 65197,
October 15, 2020) (AD 2020-20-05).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 10,
2020.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -
151N, and -153N airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -
252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -
251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N,
and -272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or
corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0140, dated June 14, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0140).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0140

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0140 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2021-0140 do not apply to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0140 specifies revising ``the
approved [aircraft maintenance program] AMP'' within 12 months after
its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0140 is at the applicable
``thresholds'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3)
of EASA AD 2021-0140, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2021-
0140 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0140 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no

alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2021-0140.

(j) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements in AD 2020-20-05

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD, including
incorporating Task 531135-03-1, terminates Task 531135-03-2, as
required by paragraph (i) of AD 2020-20-05.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0140, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0888.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

    Issued on October 20, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-23216 Filed 10-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 12789]
[DOCID:fr19mr07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-342-000]

KO Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

March 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 8, 2007, KO Transmission Company (KOT)
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No.
1, Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective April 1,
2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4995 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 24045]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09678]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72007; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading of Exchange-Traded
Managed Fund Shares

April 23, 2014.
    On February 26, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt NASDAQ Rule 5745, which would govern the
listing and trading of Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares, and to
amend related references under NASDAQ Rules 4120, 5615, IM-5615-4, and
5940. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 12, 2014.\3\ The Commission received four comments on
the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71657 (March 6,
2014), 79 FR 14092.
    \4\ See Letters to the Commission from Christopher Davis,
President, Money Management Institute, dated March 27, 2014; Robert
Tull, President, Robert Tull & Co., dated March 31, 2014; Avi
Nachmany, Co-Founder, Director of Research, E.V.P, Strategic
Insight, dated April 1, 2014; and Eric Noll, President and Chief
Executive Officer, ConvergEx Group, LLC, dated April 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act\5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is April 26, 2014. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change, which seeks to
adopt a new rule, as well as amend existing rules, relating to the
listing and trading of Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares, so that it
has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates June 10, 2014, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NASDAQ-2014-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09678 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P