[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44893-44901]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket Nos. RM08-2-002 and RM08-2-000; Order No. 720-B]

Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the Natural Gas
Act

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing and clarification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clarifies its
regulations requiring major non-interstate pipelines to post daily
scheduled volume information and other data for certain points, as well
as its regulations requiring interstate pipelines to post information
regarding the provision of no-notice service. These modifications
include establishing the compliance deadline for major non-interstate
pipelines after the effective date of this rule and clarifying the
requirement for interstate pipelines to update posted no-notice service
volumes.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Ellsworth, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-
8228<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anna Fernandez, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
(202) 502-6682<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                Numbers

I. Introduction.............................................           1
II. Background..............................................           3
III. Discussion.............................................          12
    A. Definition of Major Non-Interstate Pipeline..........          12
    B. Posting Requirements for Major Non-Interstate                  19
     Pipelines..............................................
        1. Point Design Capacity............................          20
        2. Timing of Posting Where Design Capacity is Known.          27
        3. Timing of Posting Where Design Capacity is                 30
         Unknown or Does Not Exist..........................
    C. Compliance Deadline for Future Major Non-Interstate            33
     Pipelines..............................................
    D. Confidentiality of Data to be Posted by Major Non-             37
     Interstate Pipelines...................................
    E. Interstate Pipeline Posting of No-Notice Service.....          48
IV. Information Collection Statement........................          55
V. Document Availability....................................          57
VI. Effective Date and Compliance Deadlines.................          60

United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the Natural Gas
Act, Docket Nos. RM08-2-002, Order No. 720-B, Order On Rehearing and
Clarification
Issued July 21, 2010.

I. Introduction

    1. On November 20, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued Order No. 720 requiring interstate and certain
major non-interstate natural gas pipelines to post limited information
on publicly accessible Internet Web sites regarding their
operations.\1\ On January 21, 2010, the Commission issued Order No.
720-A in response to requests for rehearing and clarification of Order
No. 720.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, Order No. 720, 73 FR 73,494 (Dec. 2, 2008), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,283 (2008) (Order No. 720).
    \2\ Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, Order No. 720-A, 75 FR 5178 (Jan. 21, 2010), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,302 (2010) (Order No. 720-A).

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

    2. Following the issuance of Order No. 720-A, three parties filed
pleadings with the Commission seeking clarification and/or rehearing of
Order No. 720-A. In this order, the Commission grants in part and
denies in part those requests.

II. Background

    3. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),\3\ Congress added
section 23 to the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \4\ authorizing the Commission
``to facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale or
transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce, having
due regard for the public interest, the integrity of those markets * *
* and the protection of consumers.'' \5\ Section 23 further provides
that the Commission may issue such rules as it deems necessary and
appropriate to ``provide for the dissemination, on a timely basis, of
information about the availability and prices of natural gas sold at
wholesale and interstate commerce to the Commission, State commissions,
buyers and sellers of wholesale natural gas, and the public.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594
(2005).
    \4\ NGA Sec.  23, 15 U.S.C. 717t-2 (2000 & Supp. V 2005).
    \5\ NGA Sec.  23, 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On December 21, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR), proposing to require both interstate and certain
major non-interstate natural gas pipelines to post daily information
regarding their capacity, scheduled flow volumes, and actual flow
volumes at major points and mainline segments.\7\ The Commission
believed that the posting proposal would facilitate price transparency
in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in
interstate commerce to implement section 23 of the Natural Gas Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, 73 FR 1116 (Jan. 7, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs.
Proposed Regulations 2004-2007 ] 32,626, at P 3 (2007).
    \8\ Id. P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Acting under its authority in section 23 of the NGA, the
Commission, on November 20, 2008, issued Order No. 720 requiring non-
exempt major non-interstate pipelines to post scheduled flow and other
information for each receipt or delivery point with a design capacity
greater than 15,000 MMBtu per day.\9\ Order No. 720 defined a ``major
non-interstate pipeline'' as a natural gas pipeline that is not a
natural gas company under the NGA and delivers annually more than 50
million MMBtu measured in average deliveries over the past three years.
The Commission found that information about scheduled natural gas flows
on major non-interstate pipelines is necessary to fill in significant
gaps in the information currently available to interstate market
participants. The Commission found that a significant amount of natural
gas flows from producing basins to interstate markets on non-interstate
pipelines. These scheduled flows affect supply considerations in
interstate markets. Similarly, flows on non-interstate pipelines at the
end of the delivery chain affect the demand considerations in the
interstate market. Without access to significant information about
supply and demand, interstate natural gas market participants are left
with incomplete information to understand interstate wholesale prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order No. 720 at P 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Regarding interstate natural gas pipelines, Order No. 720
expanded the Commission's existing posting requirements under 18 CFR
Part 284 to require interstate pipelines to post volumes of no-notice
service flows at each receipt and delivery point three days after the
gas flow. The Commission stated that, without reporting of no-notice
service, the market cannot see large and unexpected increases in gas
demand and therefore cannot understand price formation during such
occasions. The Commission found that reporting such information after
the gas flows, as required by Order No. 720, allows market participants
to understand historical patterns of flows and will enable them to
better predict future no-notice flows, with less of a burden than
requiring full posting of actual flows.
    7. Order No. 720 required major non-interstate pipelines to comply
with the new rules within 150 days of Order No. 720's publication in
the Federal Register.\10\ Subsequently, the Commission extended the
compliance deadline for major non-interstate pipelines until 150 days
after an order on rehearing of Order No. 720. Order No. 720 required
interstate natural gas pipelines to comply with the posting
requirements no later than 60 days following the order's publication,
and the Commission did not extend that deadline.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. P 168.
    \11\ Order No. 720 at P 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Following the issuance of Order No. 720, several parties filed
requests for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 720. In Order No.
720-A, the Commission generally affirmed Order No. 720, granting a
number or requests for rehearing and clarification and adopting
regulations consistent with its findings. Order No. 720-A, among other
things: modified the definition of ``major non-interstate pipeline'' to
include new pipelines (pipelines that have been operational for less
than three years) with design capacities of more than 50 million MMBtu
of natural gas annually; and established that, where design capacity is
unknown or does not exist at a particular delivery or receipt point, a
major non-interstate pipeline must post scheduling information for that
point if gas volumes equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu were
scheduled to it on any day within the prior three calendar years. Order
No. 720-A also established a July 1, 2010 compliance deadline for major
non-interstate pipelines (150 days following the publication of Order
No. 720-A in the Federal Register).\12\ The Commission did not modify
the January 30, 2009 compliance deadline for interstate pipelines.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, Docket No. RM08-2-001 (Jan. 27, 2010) (Errata
Notice On Compliance Deadline). The notice corrected paragraph 216
of Order No. 720-A which incorrectly stated that major non-
interstate pipelines must comply with the order no later than 150
days following its issuance.
    \13\ Id. P 215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Following the issuance of Order No. 720-A, three parties filed
pleadings with the Commission seeking clarification and/or rehearing of
Order No. 720-A: Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA);
American Gas Association (AGA); and Atmos Pipeline-Texas, a division of
Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos).
    10. In addition, subsequent to the issuance of Order No. 720-A,
Atmos, AGA, the Railroad Commission of Texas, and Texas Pipeline
Association made requests to the Commission to extend the July 1, 2010
deadline for major non-interstate pipelines to comply with the
requirements of Order Nos. 720 and 720-A. On May 28, 2010, the
Secretary of the Commission issued a Notice of Extension of Time
extending the compliance deadline from July 1, 2010 until September 1,
2010.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, Docket No. RM08-2-000 (Issued May 28, 2010) (Notice
of Extension of Time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. As discussed below, the Commission grants in part and denies in
part the requests for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 720-A.

III. Discussion

A. Definition of Major Non-Interstate Pipeline

    12. In Order No. 720, the Commission adopted a definition of
``major non-interstate pipeline'' as a pipeline that: (1) Is not a
``natural gas pipeline'' under section 1 of the NGA; and (2) delivers
annually more than 50 million MMBtu of natural gas measured in average
deliveries over the past three years.'' \15\ Order No. 720 added that
the delivery threshold would be applied on a ``facility-by-facility''
basis,\16\ which Order No. 720-A clarified applies both to determine
whether a pipeline is a major non-interstate pipeline under 18 CFR
284.1(d) and also whether a major non-interstate pipeline is exempted
from the posting requirements as provided in 18 CFR 284.14(b).\17\
Order No. 720-A also explained that, under a facility-by-facility
analysis, if a set of facilities is physically interconnected and
operationally integrated (i.e., transports natural gas through a
centralized scheduling process), then the facilities should be treated
as one entity, as opposed to multiple entities.\18\ The Commission
noted that whether pipelines are organized into separate corporate
divisions or formal operating systems is irrelevant to the
analysis.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 18 CFR 284.1(d)(2).
    \16\ Order No. 720 at P 64.
    \17\ Order No. 720-A at P 76.
    \18\ Id. P 77.
    \19\ Id. P 78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Request for Clarification or Rehearing
    13. Atmos requests clarification or rehearing regarding certain
facilities that are jointly owned by two or more parties, but which are
operated by only one of the parties. In Atmos' hypothetical, Pipeline A
and Pipeline B each own an undivided but equal interest in Facility X,
which is a major non-interstate pipeline physically interconnected with
other facilities of both Pipeline A and Pipeline B. Under its
hypothetical, Pipeline A is the operator of Facility X and Pipeline B
merely shares in the revenues and expenses from the ownership and
operation of Facility X. Atmos believes that under this hypothetical
the posting requirements are satisfied by Pipeline A's assumption of
the reporting obligation for all eligible receipt and delivery points
on Facility X inasmuch as Pipeline A is operating Facility X. Atmos
also believes that, to the extent Pipeline B operates receipt or
delivery points on Pipeline B's side of the interconnect with Facility
X, Pipeline B would have the reporting obligation with respect to those
points.
    14. Atmos also requests clarification that Facility X can be
effectively treated as part of the larger system of Pipeline A for
purposes of reporting requirements to the extent that Pipeline A
operates Facility X as part of a larger, major non-interstate pipeline
system that is both physically connected and operationally integrated.
    15. Lastly, Atmos requests clarification that annual information
regarding transport and storage quantities reported on FERC Form 2 or a
state equivalent form may be utilized by a major non-interstate
pipeline for the initial and subsequent determinations of whether its
average annual deliveries over the preceding three years exceeded 50
million MMBtu.
2. Commission Determination
    16. Atmos' requests for clarification and rehearing are granted in
part and denied in part. We agree with Atmos that where facilities are
jointly owned by two or more parties, but are operated by only one of
the parties, it is appropriate that the operating party post the
necessary information regarding the jointly-owned facility.
    17. Regarding whether its hypothetical Facility X can be treated as
part of the larger system of Pipeline A for purposes of the reporting
requirements, the Commission explained in Order No. 720-A that, under a
facility-by-facility analysis, physically interconnected and
operationally integrated (i.e., utilize centralized scheduling process)
facilities shall be treated as one entity for purposes of determining
whether a pipeline is a major non-interstate pipeline. Consistent with
that explanation, Facility X can be treated as part of the larger
system of Pipeline A for purposes of the reporting requirement, and
need not be treated as a stand-alone major non-interstate pipeline with
an independent reporting requirement.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As a reminder, the Commission's help desk can facilitate
responses to questions regarding compliance with our regulations.
See Obtaining Guidance on Regulatory Requirements, 123 FERC ] 61,157
(2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Atmos' request for clarification regarding the use of FERC Form
2 or a state equivalent for the threshold determinations is granted in
part and denied in part. In order to determine if a pipeline qualifies
as a major non-interstate pipeline under the rule, the pipeline must
aggregate its natural gas deliveries over the previous three calendar
years and divide by three. In making this calculation, a pipeline may
use any data source, not limited to FERC Form 2 or a state equivalent,
that accurately reports its total deliveries for each of the preceding
three calendar years.

B. Posting Requirements for Major Non-Interstate Pipelines

    19. In Order No. 720, the Commission required all non-exempt major
non-interstate pipelines to post both scheduled natural gas flow and
design capacity information for each receipt and delivery point with a
design capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu per day.\21\ The
Commission also amended its regulations in Order No. 720-A and found
that, where design capacity is unknown or does not exist, major non-
interstate pipelines must post scheduling information for points with
scheduled volumes equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu on any day
within the prior three calendar years.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 720 at P 82.
    \22\ Order No. 720-A at P 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Point Design Capacity
    20. In Order No. 720, the Commission stated that, in circumstances
where the design capacity of a receipt or delivery point could vary
according to operational or usage conditions, a major non-interstate
pipeline must post the design capacity for the most common operating
conditions of its system during peak periods.\23\ Order No. 720-A also
stated that, if the major non-interstate pipeline has greater capacity
at its point than the interconnecting interstate pipeline, the major
non-interstate pipelines must nevertheless post the actual design
capacity of its point. That is because the obligation to post design
capacity relates to the facilities of the major non-interstate
pipeline. Order No. 720-A added that major non-interstate pipelines
must use reasonable efforts to determine design capacity at physical
receipt and delivery points and to the extent that a major non-
interstate pipeline is uncertain as to how to calculate design
capacity, it is free to contact the Commission's compliance help desk
for informal guidance.\24\ Further, major non-interstate pipelines are
free to post additional information, including, for example,
operational considerations that could affect available capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Order No. 720 at P 92.
    \24\ Order No. 720-A at 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Request for Clarification
    21. Atmos requests that the Commission clarify to a greater degree
what constitutes ``reasonable efforts'' to determine the design
capacity for a

physical receipt or delivery point. Atmos states that it has performed
some engineering analysis at receipt and delivery points on its system
where the point capacity, either individually or combined with other
points on the same pipeline or lateral, exceeds the delivery
capabilities of the upstream or downstream pipeline or lateral. For
example, Atmos states that one pipeline segment on its system has a
maximum daily capacity of approximately 800 MMSCF per day. However, two
eligible points on this segment each have a design capacity of 500
MMSCF per day, so that the total capacity of the two points exceeds the
segment capacity by 200 MMSCF. Therefore, Atmos submits, in this type
of situation the design capacity of an individual receipt or delivery
point is not a reasonable determination of the point's capacity in
every instance.
    22. Atmos believes that a more reasonable determination of a
point's capacity in such circumstances would be the highest scheduled
volume to that point on any day during the three calendar years because
that is truly reflective of known and actual pipeline system operating
conditions and requests that the Commission allow a major non-
interstate pipeline to utilize this benchmark for point capacity
posting purposes if (i) a reasonable attempt has been made to calculate
design capacity consistent with the standard articulated in Order No.
720-A and (ii) the calculated design capacity is not a reasonable
representation of the capacity at the point due to upstream or
downstream facility limitations. Atmos recognizes the Commission has
authorized major non-interstate pipelines to post additional
information that may affect available capacity, but Atmos anticipates
that this will result in postings replete with footnotes and caveats
that may only serve to create more confusion for data observers.
b. Commission Determination
    23. Atmos' request for clarification is approved in part and denied
in part. In Order No. 720-A, the Commission provided clear instructions
for determining the applicable capacity for points where design
capacity is unknown; major non-interstate pipelines must post scheduled
flow data for points where design capacity is unknown or does not exist
with scheduled maximum natural gas volumes equal to or greater than
15,000 MMBtu on any day within the prior three calendar years.\25\ The
Commission adopted these rules with the understanding that there exist
a small number of physical receipt and delivery points where major non-
interstate pipelines cannot reasonably determine a physical design
capacity. While not identifying herein specific actions that would
constitute ``reasonable'' effort in determining a point's capacity, the
Commission will clarify that major non-interstate pipelines would not
be expected to undertake studies that would involve a physical survey
of the point in question or use information not on hand or easily
obtainable by the company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Order No. 720-A at P 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. That clarification notwithstanding, Atmos' comments attempt to
reopen the question about whether design capacity is the appropriate
measure to be posted. The Commission elected to require posting based
on each receipt and delivery point's design capacity as opposed to some
measure of highest actual usage at a point, because a point's design
capacity was relatively fixed and lent itself to stable posting
requirements. Ultimately, the Commission also believed that this would
be less burdensome for pipelines.\26\ In Order No. 720-A, the
Commission affirmed its position and found that, despite the day-to-day
operational factors that can sometimes affect available capacity,
market participants should nevertheless be able to ascertain available
capacity from the data to be posted by major non-interstate
pipelines.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Order No. 720 at P 91.
    \27\ Order No. 720-A at 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Atmos has not presented any evidence indicating that it is
unable to determine the design capacity of the points on its system. In
fact, in its example, the design capacity of each point is known to be
500 MMSCF. Simply put, Atmos desires that the Commission require
posting based on maximum scheduled flows at a point, as opposed to
design capacity.
    26. As discussed above, the Commission believes that design
capacity is a less burdensome and reasonably objective criterion,
although operationally available capacity provides market participants
additional information about capacity availability. If Atmos, or any
other major non-interstate pipeline, desires to post on its Web site a
point's operationally available capacity, in addition to its design
capacity, we support its efforts to do so.
2. Timing of Posting Where Design Capacity Is Known
    27. In Order No. 720-A, the Commission required major non-
interstate pipelines to begin Internet posting for newly-eligible
receipt and delivery points within 45 days of the date the point
becomes eligible for posting.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. P 115. This requirement is set forth in section
284.14(a)(3) of the Commission's regulations, as revised by Order
No. 720-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Request for Clarification
    28. AGA asserts that it is not clear when a newly-installed point
with a physically metered design capacity equal to or greater than
15,000 MMBtu per day should be considered to become eligible for
posting for purposes of triggering the 45-day period after which the
pipeline must post information about the point. AGA recommends that the
Commission clarify that such a new point does not become eligible for
posting until the date the point has volumes scheduled to it. Atmos
supports AGA's request for clarification.
b. Commission Determination
    29. The Commission clarifies that a newly installed point with a
physically metered design capacity equal to or greater than 15,000
MMBtu per day becomes eligible for posting on its in-service date.
Therefore, the major non-interstate pipeline must begin posting the
required information about that point 45 days after its in-service
date. Scheduled volume information is only one category of the
information section 284.14(a)(4) of the Commission's regulations
requires major non-interstate pipelines to post. Also required is
information regarding a point's design capacity. As the Commission
found in Order No. 720, market participants can utilize design capacity
and scheduled volume information to help determine available capacity
at a particular point and therefore, required posting of both design
capacity and scheduled volume information.\29\ When a new point is
placed into service its capacity is available for use by shippers, and
therefore the major non-interstate pipeline should begin posting the
availability of capacity at that point within 45 days, regardless of
whether volumes have yet been scheduled at that point. AGA's and Atmos'
request to delay posting until volumes are first scheduled to a new
point would frustrate this very purpose and therefore, their request is
denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Order No. 720 at P 82, 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Timing of Posting Where Design Capacity Is Unknown or Does Not Exist
    30. When the design capacity of a point is unknown or does not
exist, major non-interstate pipelines must post scheduling information
for that point if

its scheduled volumes were equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu on any
day within the prior three calendar years. Order No. 720-A held that
major non-interstate pipelines need only review scheduled volume data
annually to determine whether points where no design capacity is known
must be posted. Therefore, such points do not become eligible for
posting until January 1 of the year after the first day on which
scheduled volumes equaled or exceeded 15,000 MMBtu.\30\ This means that
major non-interstate pipelines do not have to begin posting the
required information about that point until 45 days after January 1, or
on February 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Order No. 720-A at P 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Request for Clarification or Rehearing
    31. AGA contends that a January 1 eligibility date for points where
design capacity is unknown or does not exist is problematic because it
means that, by February 15 of each year, the pipeline must, both
collect and analyze the data necessary to determine whether a point
would be eligible and make the necessary system changes to begin
posting each eligible point. AGA recommends that the Commission clarify
that for a point where the physically metered design capacity is not
known or does not exist, such points become eligible for posting on
February 1 of the following year, thus, postponing the date when the
major non-interstate pipeline must begin posting information about the
points until March 18 of the following year. Atmos supports AGA's
request for clarification.
b. Commission Determination
    32. AGA's request is denied. As described above, the eligibility
determination for points whose design capacity is unknown or does not
exist is based on calendar year data. Therefore, it is appropriate that
the point be considered eligible for posting immediately upon
completion of the calendar year during which scheduled volumes at the
point reached or exceeded 15,000 MMBtu for at least one day. By
requesting that the Commission move the eligibility date for such
points from January 1 to February 1, AGA is effectively asking that the
Commission extend the 45-day deadline to commence posting by one month,
to 76 days. In denying earlier requests to expand the 45-day period,
the Commission found that major non-interstate pipelines have access
to, and utilize on a daily basis all of the information necessary to
determine whether a receipt or delivery point must be posted under the
new regulations.\31\ Further, the Commission found that the posting of
newly eligible points is of substantial value to market participants as
new receipt and delivery points or increased scheduled flow to points
could have immediate, substantial effect on market prices.\32\
Balancing the transparency benefits of timely posting for newly
eligible points with the burden of collecting and analyzing the data
necessary to determine whether a point would be eligible and making the
necessary system changes to begin posting, the Commission concluded
that 45 days is appropriate.\33\ AGA has not provided any specific
evidence that would contradict the Commission's findings, even where
design capacity is unknown or does not exist. Therefore, its request is
denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. P 116.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Compliance Deadline for Future Major Non-Interstate Pipelines

    33. A ``major non-interstate pipeline'' is defined as a natural gas
pipeline that is not a natural gas company under the NGA and delivers
annually more than 50 million MMBtu measured in average deliveries over
the past three calendar years.
a. Request for Clarification
    34. Atmos and AGA state that a pipeline may not currently qualify
as a major non-interstate pipeline because its average deliveries over
the last three calendar years were less than 50 million MMBtu. However,
the pipeline could subsequently qualify as a major non-interstate
pipeline if its annual deliveries increase. Atmos and AGA state that
the Commission's posting regulations do not clearly articulate when a
major non-interstate pipeline must begin complying with the posting
requirements in subsequent years if its three-year deliveries average
rises above the 50 million MMBtu threshold or it is no longer exempt.
Atmos and AGA recommend that the Commission revise the regulations to
make clear that after 2010, a pipeline that did not previously have to
comply with the posting regulations, but then meets the definition of a
major non-interstate pipeline and is not otherwise exempt, has until
July 1 of that year to comply with the posting requirements. AGA argues
that such pipelines should be permitted no less than 150 days to
develop the systems and Internet resources to comply with the posting
requirements, which is the same compliance period for pipelines today
that meet the definition of a major non-interstate pipeline.
b. Commission Determination
    35. Atmos' and AGA's requests for clarification are granted in part
and denied in part. The Commission will provide pipelines that: (a)
Meet the definition of a major non-interstate pipeline in the future;
and (b) currently exempt major non-interstate pipelines that in the
future no longer qualify for an exemption, have 150 days from the date
the pipeline meets the definition of a major non-interstate pipeline or
is no longer exempt to comply with the posting requirements.\34\
However, this requires compliance by June 1, not July 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ This time period is consistent with the time provided under
Order No. 720 for major non-interstate pipelines to comply initially
with the rule. Order No. 720 at P 168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Similar to points where design capacity is unknown or does not
exist, the threshold for determining if a pipeline meets the definition
of a major non-interstate pipeline is based on calendar year data.
Because points where design capacity is unknown or does not exist are
based on calendar year data, they become eligible for posting on
January 1 of the following year. Likewise, because the major non-
interstate pipeline delivery threshold and posting exemptions are based
upon calendar year data, the pipelines become eligible on January 1 of
the following year.

D. Confidentiality of Data To Be Posted by Major Non-Interstate
Pipelines

    37. In Order No. 720, the Commission required that all postings by
major non-interstate pipelines pursuant to this rule be public. The
Commission recognized that posting scheduled gas flows at eligible
delivery points dedicated to a single customer could have some effect
on the competitive position of that customer. However, the Commission
found that posting such information will provide useful information to
the Commission, market participants, and other market observers and
will greatly increase market transparency. The Commission concluded
that this benefit outweighs concerns about publicly posting information
about scheduled flows to a customer with a dedicated delivery
point.\35\ The Commission pointed out that interstate pipelines are
required to post daily scheduled volumes for delivery points dedicated
to a single customer, and there have been no indications that
competitive balance

has been harmed since the interstate requirement to post was
instituted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Order No. 720 at P 88-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. In Order No. 720-A, the Commission denied rehearing of its
requirement that all postings be public.\36\ The Commission rejected
contentions that this requirement would cause disclosure of potentially
sensitive information regarding the physical location of receipt and
delivery points or actual natural gas flows that would implicate
national security.\37\ The Commission also found that there had been no
showing that the public posting requirement would result in the
violation of state commission rules regarding the disclosure of private
customer data.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Order No. 720-A at P 123.
    \37\ Id. P 124.
    \38\ Id. P 125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Request for Clarification or Rehearing
    39. AGA requests that the Commission clarify that major non-
interstate pipelines have flexibility in the manner in which they
comply with the rule's posting requirements in order to prevent the
disclosure of confidential information or the violation of state law or
other regulatory requirements. Alternatively, AGA seeks rehearing on
the grounds that the Commission's explanations for dismissing AGA's
concerns are unsupported and contrary to law. AGA raises generally the
same arguments that were discussed and rejected in Order Nos. 720 and
720-A.
    40. AGA contends that not affording pipelines flexibility in this
regard would be contrary to section 23 of the NGA, which provides that
in determining the information to be disclosed, ``the Commission shall
seek to ensure that consumers and competitive markets are protected
from the adverse effects of potential collusion or other anti-
competitive behaviors that can be facilitated by untimely public
disclosure of transaction-specific information.'' \39\ AGA contends
that, under the revised regulations, if a particular delivery point
services a single large customer and the current Location Name of the
delivery point were designated as the name of the customer, then
listing the Location Name as the name of the customer, the Posted
Capacity of the customer's delivery point, and the customer's Scheduled
Volumes on a daily basis would each disclose customer-specific
information. AGA contends that this could be a violation of state law
if a utility were prohibited from disclosing customer-specific
information under state law. Likewise, AGA contends that if a Location
Name is the name of a military installation, disclosing daily scheduled
volumes could have national security implications. Further, AGA argues
that the posting of scheduled natural gas volumes could have anti-
competitive effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ AGA Request for Rehearing at 11 (citing NGA Sec.
23(b)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. AGA contends that potential ways of affording flexibility to
major non-interstate pipelines would be to allow: (a) The Location Name
to be changed to a region or county to protect the identity of the
customer (e.g., [County Name] 1--Delivery, [County Name] 2--Delivery);
(b) the pipeline to post information at an upstream aggregation point
served by more than one customer; (c) the aggregation of customer data
within given regions, instead of requiring the posting of the scheduled
volumes of a single customer. Atmos supports AGA's request for
clarification and rehearing.
2. Commission Determination
    42. The Commission grants in part AGA's request for clarification
in order to give major non-interstate pipelines some flexibility in how
they comply with the requirement that they publicly post scheduled
flows at delivery points dedicated to a single customer. As the
Commission pointed out in Order No. 720-A, the major non-interstate
posting requirements do not mandate the disclosure of the physical
location or composition of receipt and delivery point facilities.\40\
Nonetheless, the Commission will allow, although not require, a major
non-interstate pipeline labeling a customer-specific point according to
the city or county within which it is located, as opposed to the
specific name of the customer, as proposed by AGA. Such an
identification should provide the Commission, market participants, and
other market observers sufficient information about the location where
the gas flow is being delivered, to analyze and understand the demand
conditions affecting price formation in that area, while not revealing
the name of the specific customer to whom the gas is being delivered.
The Commission will not require this alternative designation; if the
major non-interstate pipeline chooses to identify a single-customer
delivery point as interstate pipelines have for several years, it may
do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Order No. 720-A at P 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. However, AGA's other suggestions would appear to allow the
pipeline to use broader geographic areas than just a single city or
county for purposes of identifying the location of the delivery point.
This could significantly reduce the value of the posted information to
understand demand conditions affecting price formation. Therefore, the
Commission denies AGA's request to allow pipelines to post information
at an upstream aggregation point served by more than one customer or
allow the aggregation of customer data within given regions.
    44. With regard to AGA's concern about the posting requirement
violating state regulatory requirements, the Commission will not, in
this rulemaking proceeding, grant major non-interstate pipelines a
blanket exemption from posting scheduled flows to delivery points
dedicated to a single customer whenever they believe such a posting
might violate a state regulatory requirement. In section 23(a)(2) of
the NGA, Congress called for any transparency rule to provide for the
``dissemination, on a timely basis, of information about the
availability and prices of natural gas sold at wholesale and interstate
commerce to the Commission, State commissions, buyers and sellers of
wholesale natural gas, and the public.'' \41\ The Commission believes
that requiring all postings to be public is specifically in keeping
with this directive. Moreover, the posting information will provide
useful information to the Commission, market participants, and other
market observers, thereby greatly increasing market transparency. As
stated previously, the Commission believes that this benefit outweighs
the concerns about publicly posting information about scheduled volumes
to a customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 &
Supp. V 2005) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. AGA points out that section 23(b)(2) provides, ``In determining
the information to be made available under this section and the time to
make the information to be available, the Commission shall seek to
ensure that consumers and competitive markets are protected from the
adverse effects of potential collusion or other anti-competitive
behaviors that can be facilitated by untimely public disclosure of
transaction-specific information.'' AGA appears to read this provision
as requiring the Commission to exempt from public posting any
information that might have some effect on the competitive position of
a particular participant in the natural gas market. However, this
provision only provides that, in requiring public disclosure, the
Commission should seek to ensure that consumers and competitive markets
are protected from ``the adverse effects of potential collusion or
other anti-competitive behaviors'' (emphasis supplied). AGA has
provided no

explanation as to how public disclosure of scheduled deliveries at
points dedicated to a single customer would contribute to ``collusion
or other anti-competitive behaviors.'' In fact, as the Commission found
in Order No. 720-A, ``understanding * * * demand in large non-
interstate pipelines downstream of the interstate market will enable
market observers to better understand prices and, therefore, identify
potential cases of market manipulation.'' \42\ We therefore believe
that the requirement to disclose scheduled flows at delivery points
with significant load \43\ likely to affect market prices is more
likely to minimize anti-competitive behaviors, than contribute to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Order No. 720-A at P 62.
    \43\ As discussed in Order No. 720, at P 90, the posting
requirement only applies at delivery points with significant load,
such as major pipeline interconnections and points with substantial
industrial load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. Moreover, the Commission is not persuaded, based upon the
limited information provided by AGA, that, even without the
clarification granted above, the Commission's requirement that major
non-interstate pipelines post scheduled flows at major delivery points
dedicated to a single customer conflict with state prohibitions
regarding the disclosure of private customer data. For example, AGA
cites a provision in the tariff of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E),
approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC),
providing that ``to preserve customer privacy, PG&E will not release
confidential information, including financial information, to a third
party without the customers electronic signature or the written
consent.'' \44\ However, it is not clear that scheduled deliveries at a
major delivery point would be considered confidential information,
subject to this provision. As we noted in Order No. 720-A, not a single
state commission has raised this issue in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ AGA Request for Rehearing at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. Nevertheless, if a major non-interstate pipeline believes that
posting scheduled flows to eligible delivery points dedicated to a
single customer violates a state regulatory confidentiality
requirement, and if the flexibility provided in this order to identify
the point by county or city is insufficient to avoid a violation of
that requirement, the pipeline may request a waiver from the posting
requirement. In any such waiver request, the pipeline should provide a
complete explanation of why the state regulatory requirement is
applicable, together with citations to any applicable state agency or
court precedent supporting its interpretation of the state regulatory
requirement. The Commission would also expect that in such a waiver
request the applicant would affirmatively demonstrate that it has
spoken with and obtained the support of the applicable state regulatory
agency with respect to its waiver request.

E. Interstate Pipeline Posting of No-Notice Service

    48. Order No. 720 required interstate natural gas pipelines to post
volumes of no-notice service flows at each receipt and delivery point
before 11:30 a.m. central clock time three days after the day of gas
flow.\45\ The Commission found that such information is valuable, even
posted three days after gas flow, because it allows market participants
to increase their understanding of historical patterns of no-notice gas
flows and enables them to better anticipate future no-notice flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Order No. 720 at P 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. In Order No. 720-A, the Commission clarified that, because
interstate pipelines have varying metering and measurement equipment,
they are only required to post information that is available to
them.\46\ The Order No. 720 regulations do not require construction of
new metering equipment. Instead, the interstate pipelines should post
whatever data it has available after three days, noting any
deficiencies in the posting on its website. Order No. 720-A added that
an interstate pipeline should update previously posted information if,
subsequent to an initial posting, more complete no-notice service data
becomes available.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Order No. 720-A at P 190.
    \47\ Order No. 720-A at P 190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Request for Clarification or Rehearing
    50. INGAA's request for clarification or rehearing focuses on Order
No. 720-A's statement that, ``if subsequent to an initial posting, more
complete no-notice service data becomes available, interstate pipelines
must update previously posted information.'' INGAA requests that the
Commission clarify that an interstate pipeline's obligation to update
previously posted information is limited to providing no-notice
information where none was available within three days after the day of
gas flow, as opposed to revising information that has already been
posted.\48\ If, however, the obligation to update previously posted
data goes beyond supplying missing data to revising data that has
already been posted, INGAA prefers that the Commission eliminate the
update requirement in its entirety or, in the alternative, limit it to
one update for each posted figure, to be provided within ten business
days after the end of the month in which the posted service was
rendered.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ INGAA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 2-3.
    \49\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. INGAA argues that the Commission promulgated the after-the-fact
obligation to update initially posted no-notice information without
developing a record on the cost of assembling and reporting this
information or the benefit that updated no-notice data would provide
either to market participants, price formation and other market
behavior, or market transparency. INGAA contends that updated no-notice
data is of no value to market participants, price formation or market
transparency and that the minor and non-substantive changes that would
be made to the originally posted data do not warrant the additional
costs associated with providing it.
    52. INGAA contends that meter adjustments and the receipt of
corrected data from third parties cause minor departures from initially
posted no-notice information and as a result, certain no-notice
quantities are not fully known until the ``close of measurement,''
which is defined by NAESB as five business days after the end of the
month. If the Commission insists on some form of updating, INGAA urges
limiting it to one update for each posted figure, to be provided within
ten business days after the end of the month in which the posted
service was rendered.
2. Commission Determination
    53. The Commission grants INGAA's request for rehearing in part and
modifies 18 CFR 284.13(d) to provide that an interstate pipeline must
provide no-notice transportation information based on its best estimate
before 11:30 a.m. central clock time three days after the day of gas
flow and make one update to each posted figure as necessary within ten
business days after the month in which the posted service was
performed. The Commission finds that requiring a single update should
ensure that interstate pipelines provide accurate information about no-
notice gas flows, without burdening pipelines with a requirement to
make frequent, minor changes in posted volumes. As stated in Order No.
720, information on no-notice volumes is valuable even posted after the
no-notice gas flows because it allows market participants and other
market observers to understand the historical patterns of

flows and will enable them to better predict future no-notice
flows.\50\ Updating the initially posted flow data based on corrected
information obtained through the close of the NAESB measurement period
will assist in understanding historical flow patterns and predicting
future no-notice flows. We therefore decline to limit an interstate
pipeline's obligation to update previously posted information to
providing no-notice information where none was available within three
days after the day of gas flow. Of course, if the no-notice information
posted three days after the flow date does not change before the close
of the NAESB measurement period, no update will be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Order No. 720 at P 162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Based upon INGAA's comments, interstate pipelines have access
to reasonably accurate no-notice information within 3 days after gas
flow, but within 5 business days of the end of the month of gas flow
the no-notice information is more fully known by the interstate
pipelines. The revised regulation takes into account this lag time in
information, thus reducing the burden on interstate pipelines to
continuously update estimated no-notice information. At the same time,
however, this modification presents the Commission and the market with
continued access to the most-accurate data, thereby enhancing
transparency.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    55. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting, recordkeeping, and public
disclosure (collections of information) imposed by and for an
agency.\51\ The information collection requirements or FERC-551 were
approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 1902-0243. This order further
revises these requirements in order to more clearly state the
obligations imposed in Order Nos. 720 and 720-A. In response to the
requests for rehearing, the Commission has made several revisions that
can be considered as ``substantive or material modifications'' to the
information collection requirements,\52\ and we will submit them for
OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.\53\ The revisions in this
order will not have a significant impact on the Commission's burden
estimates expressed in Order No. 720-A and so the Commission will
retain those estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 5 CFR 1320.12 (2009).
    \52\ 5 CFR 1320.5(g).
    \53\ See 44 U.S.C. 3507(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. 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:
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director]; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
submitting comments concerning the collection of information, please
send your comments to the contact listed above and 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] Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent
electronically to the following e-mail address: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0243 and
the docket number of this order in your submission.

V. Document Availability

    57. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    58. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    59. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VI. Effective Date and Compliance Deadlines

    60. Changes to Order Nos. 720 and 720-A made in this Order on
Rehearing will become effective on October 1, 2010. Accordingly, the
compliance deadline for major non-interstate pipelines shall be
extended to October 1, 2010.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Continental shelf; Incorporation by reference; Natural gas;
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission amends 18 CFR part 284 as follows:

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 284 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

0
2. In Sec.  284.13, paragraph (d)(1), the last two sentences are
revised and a third final sentence is added, to read as follows:

Sec.  284.13  Reporting requirements for interstate pipelines.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * An interstate pipeline must also provide information
about the volumes of no-notice transportation provided pursuant to
Sec.  284.7(a)(4). This information must be posted at each receipt and
delivery point before 11:30 a.m. central clock time three days after
the day of gas flow and must reflect the pipeline's best estimate.
Updated information must be posted at each receipt and delivery point
as necessary within ten business days after the month of gas flow.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  284.14 by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  284.14.  Posting requirements of major non-interstate pipelines.

* * * * *
    (5) Newly constructed major non-interstate pipelines, which
commence service after the effective date of this section, must comply
with the requirements of this section upon their in-service date.
Except for newly constructed major non-interstate pipelines, a major
non-interstate pipeline that becomes subject to the requirements of
this section in any year after the effective date of this section

has until June 1 of that year to comply with the requirements of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-18312 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62932-62933]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26487]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33310]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

November 30, 2018.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
November 2018. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the
SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on December 26, 2018, and
should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of
an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to
Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at

(202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's
Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Active Assets Prime Trust [File No. 811-09713]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On January 31, 2018, applicant made
liquidating distributions to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $13,717 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 29, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.,
522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036.

TCW Alternative Funds [File No. 811-23025]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On October 5, 2018, applicant made
liquidating distributions to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $45,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 30, 2018, and
amended on November 20, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1800, Los
Angeles, California 90017.

Thai Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-05348]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On January
26, 2018, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $55,300 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 29, 2018, and
amended on November 20, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.,
522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036.

Turkish Investment Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-05921]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December
29, 2017, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $93,000 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 29, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.,
522 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036.

Van Eck Emerging Markets Multi-Asset Income Fund [File No. 811-22854]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 26, 2018, and
amended on November 19, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New
York 10017.

Van Eck Coastland Online Consumer Finance Fund [File No. 811-23224]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 1, 2018, and
amended on November 19, 2018.
    Applicant's Address: 666 Third Avenue, 9th Floor, New York, New
York 10017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26487 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 938]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7577-012]

Burton Creek Hydro Inc., Sollos Energy, LLC'

    Notice of Transfer of Exemption
    1. By letter filed December 19, 2012, Burton Creek Hydro Inc.
informed the Commission that its exemption from licensing for the
Burton Creek Hydro Project, FERC No. 7577, originally issued September
25, 1985,\1\ has been transferred to Sollos Energy, LLC. The project is
located on Burton Creek in Lewis County, Washington. The transfer of an
exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 32 FERC ] 62,641, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Sollos Energy, LLC, Mr. Samuel Perry located at 5980 SE 30th
Street, Mercer Island, Washington 98040 is now the exemptee of the
Burton Creek Hydro Project, FERC No. 7577.

    Dated: December 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00019 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6750-6752]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57230; File No. SR-OPRA-2007-03]

Options Price Reporting Authority; Order Granting Permanent
Approval to an Amendment to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated
Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation Information, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Modify Various Provisions of the OPRA Plan
and the OPRA Fee Schedule To Reflect the Elimination of Separate Fees
for Access to Market Data Concerning Foreign Currency Options

January 29, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On October 9, 2007, the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ an amendment to
the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and
Quotation Information (``OPRA Plan'').\3\ The proposed OPRA Plan
amendment would amend various provisions of the OPRA Plan in order to
reflect the elimination of the separate fees for access to market data
concerning Foreign Currency Options (``FCOs'') that currently apply to
certain FCOs traded on the Phlx. The OPRA Fee Schedule would similarly
be revised to reflect the elimination of the separate FCO service
access fees. On November 14, 2007, OPRA submitted Amendment No. 1 to
the proposal.\4\ On December 11, 2007, OPRA submitted a revised version
of Exhibit II to Amendment No. 1 to the proposal, which it requested to
be

substituted for the original version of Exhibit II.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by
the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608
thereunder (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 17638 (March 18, 1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31,
1981). The full text of the OPRA Plan is available at http://www.opradata.com
.

    The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of
last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on
the participant exchanges. The six participants to the OPRA Plan are
the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.,
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International
Securities Exchange, Inc. (``ISE''), the NYSE Arca, Inc., and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \5\ The revised Exhibit II made technical changes to the
original and corrected an outdated reference to the ``NASD,'' which
is now called ``FINRA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2007, the Commission issued notice of and approved
the proposal, as amended, on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days,
and solicited comment on the proposal.\6\ The Commission received no
comment letters in response to the Temporary Approval Order. This order
approves the proposed OPRA Plan amendment, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56949 (December 12,
2007), 72 FR 71720 (December 18, 2007) (``Temporary Approval
Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Effective March 14, 1995, the OPRA Plan was amended to authorize
the imposition of separate, unbundled access charges for market
information pertaining to FCOs.\7\ Subsequently, effective January 1,
1996, separate access charges for market information were imposed by
OPRA, and subject to the exception described below, such separate
charges have remained in effect since that time.\8\ More recently, OPRA
adopted a temporary exception to the separate FCO access fees for
``new'' FCOs first listed on any exchange on or after December 6, 2005,
pursuant to which access to market information pertaining to such
securities has been included within OPRA's basic information service,
and has required payment only of OPRA's basic service access fees.\9\
This temporary exception, which is set forth in Section VIII(c)(iii) of
the OPRA Plan, was scheduled to expire by its terms on December 31,
2007, at which time, absent extension, all FCOs would become subject to
separate FCO service access fees.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35487 (March 14,
1995), 60 FR 14984 (March 21, 1995) (File No. S7-8-90).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36613 (December 20,
1995), 60 FR 67144 (December 28, 1995) (SR-OPRA-95-5).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52901 (December 6,
2005), 70 FR 74061 (December 14, 2005) (SR-OPRA-2005-03) and 55049
(January 5, 2007), 72 FR 1568 (January 12, 2007) (SR-OPRA-2006-02).
    \10\ Pursuant to the Temporary Approval Order, this deadline was
extended on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, OPRA states that certain classes of FCOs traded on the
Phlx are subject to the separate FCO access fees, while other classes
of FCOs traded on that exchange (those first listed on or after
December 6, 2005) are subject to OPRA's basic service access fees.
Further, the ISE is the only other exchange currently trading FCOs,
where all of the FCOs were listed subsequent to December 6, 2005, and
thus are subject only to OPRA's basic service access fees.
    Recently, the Phlx informed OPRA that it has ceased listing new
series of physical delivery FCOs to replace expiring series, and
instead provides a market for foreign currency derivative securities
through the listing of new classes of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs,
sometimes referred to as World Currency Options. Under the current OPRA
Plan, access to market data concerning all options, including the new
U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, as well as individual equity options and
cash-settled index options, is subject to OPRA's basic service access
fees.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the case of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, the fee reflects
the temporary exception described above, whereas in the case of
equity and index options, it is because OPRA has never adopted
separate access fees for its index option service, but instead has
made index options subject to the same basic service access fees
that apply to equity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OPRA proposes this amendment in order to maintain the same fee
structure after the temporary exception for FCOs would otherwise have
expired at the end of 2007. Trading in existing classes of physical
delivery FCOs on the Phlx would be restricted to closing transactions
until the last outstanding class expires on March 14, 2008, if the
remaining positions in these classes are not closed out sooner.
Accordingly, by that date, if not sooner, there would no longer be any
physical delivery FCOs traded on the Phlx that would be subject to the
existing separate FCO service access fees. At that time, access to
market data for all options, including U.S. dollar-settled FCOs and all
other FCO securities, would require payment only of OPRA's basic
service access fees.
    With respect to the FCOs traded on the ISE, OPRA notes that, unless
the OPRA Plan is amended to eliminate the separate access fees for
FCOs, upon the expiration of the temporary exception, FCOs traded on
the ISE would have become subject to the separate FCO service access
fees. In order to avoid subjecting FCO subscribers to what for them
would be a new, additional, access fee for continued access to FCO
market information, OPRA states that the ISE joined with the Phlx in
requesting OPRA to amend the OPRA Plan to reflect the elimination of
these separate fees.
    Under the proposed amendment, the OPRA Plan would treat FCOs in
exactly the same manner in which it now treats index options.
Specifically, similar to index options, the OPRA Plan would continue to
provide for a separate FCO accounting center and a framework for the
possible future imposition of a separate access fee when and if
authorized by the parties that provide a market in those securities,
subject to satisfying the requirements of the Act.
    Because the proposed amendment cannot become effective until the
elimination by expiration or by closing transaction of the last
remaining open position in physical delivery FCOs traded on Phlx that
are subject to the separate FCO service access fees, which could be as
late as March 14, 2008, and because it is necessary to retain the
temporary exception from the separate FCO service access charges until
these separate charges no longer apply, OPRA proposes to extend the
temporary exception, currently scheduled to expire on December 31,
2007, until as late as March 14, 2008. Accordingly, this proposed
amendment includes an extension of the temporary exception provided for
in Section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan until such time as there is no
longer any open interest in physical delivery FCOs traded on the Phlx
that are subject to the separate FCO service access fees. In no event
will this be later than March 14, 2008. In accordance with the proposed
OPRA Plan amendment, the Phlx will advise OPRA when that last remaining
open interest no longer exists, so that the separate FCO service access
fees and the temporary exception can be removed from the OPRA Plan
effective as of that time.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed OPRA
Plan amendment, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\12\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed OPRA Plan
amendment is consistent with Section 11A of the Act \13\ and Rule 608
thereunder \14\ in that it is in the public interest and appropriate
for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets, and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving this proposed OPRA Plan Amendment, the
Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the proposed
OPRA Plan amendment to preserve the status quo and extend the deadline
set forth in Section VIII(c)(iii) of the OPRA Plan

until such time as there is no longer any open interest in physical
delivery FCOs traded on the Phlx that are subject to the separate FCO
service access fee. In addition, the Commission believes that OPRA's
proposal to amend various provisions of the OPRA Plan and the OPRA Fee
Schedule to eliminate the separate fees for access to market data
concerning FCOs that currently apply to certain FCOs traded on the Phlx
is appropriate in light of the Phlx's decision to cease listing new
series of physical delivery FCOs to replace expiring series.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or
the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to,
and perfect mechanism of, a national market system to approve the
proposed amendment to the OPRA Plan on a permanent basis.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\15\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\16\ that the proposed OPRA Plan amendment (SR-
OPRA-2007-03), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it
hereby is, approved on a permanent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1998 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32386]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southern
Company Services, Inc.:

Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP) Process Interim
Stakeholder Meeting on Order No. 1000

May 28, 2013, 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Local Time

The above-referenced meeting will be via Web conference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at
issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER13-908, Alabama Power Company et al.
Docket No. ER13-913, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Docket No. ER13-897, Louisville Gas and Electric Company and
Kentucky Utilities Company
Docket No. ER13-1221, Mississippi Power Company
Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL10-52, Central Transmission, L.L.C. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER09-1256, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline,
L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER10-253 and EL10-14, Primary Power, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER11-2814 and ER11-2815, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
American Transmission Systems, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-69, Primary Power LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-91, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-92, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.
Docket No. ER12-1178, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2399, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER12-2708, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-195, Indicated PJM Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-1033, Linden VFT, LLC and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER13-1177, 1178 and 1179, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
and Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-186, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc. and the MISO Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-187, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc. and the MISO Transmission Owners
Docket No. ER13-89, MidAmerican Energy Company and Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-101, American Transmission Company LLC and the
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-84, Cleco Power LLC
Docket No. ER13-95, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-80, Tampa Electric Company
Docket No. ER13-86, Florida Power Corporation
Docket No. ER13-104, Florida Power & Light Company
Docket No. NJ13-2, Orlando Utilities Commission
Docket Nos. ER13-366 and ER13-367, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-83, Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Carolina Power &
Light Company
Docket No. ER13-88, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-107, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 22, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12784 Filed 5-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56980-56981]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23549]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707; FRL-9931-79-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Data Reporting Requirements for State and
Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Data Reporting Requirements for
State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Programs'' (EPA ICR No. 1613.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0252) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through November 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register (80 FR 27949) on May 15, 2015 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0707, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Sosnowski, Transportation and
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: To provide general oversight and support to state and
local I/M programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that
state or local program management for both basic and enhanced I/M
programs collect two varieties of reports for

submission to EPA. The annual report provides general program operating
data and summary statistics, addresses the program's current design and
coverage, a summary of testing data, enforcement program efforts,
quality assurance and quality control efforts, and other miscellaneous
information allowing for an assessment of the program's relative
effectiveness. The second report is a biennial, and includes changes
and impacts to the program over the previous two-year period.
    General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which
a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed
to in the state's approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), which, in
turn, must meet or exceed the minimum emission reductions expected from
the relevant performance standard, as promulgated under EPA's revisions
to 40 CFR, Part 51, in response to requirements established in section
182 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act). This information
will be used by EPA to determine a program's progress toward meeting
requirements under 40 CFR, Part 51, as well as to assess national
trends in the area of basic and enhanced I/M programs and to provide
background information in support of periodic site visits and
evaluations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State I/M program managers.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 51.366).
    Estimated number of respondents: 28 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual and biennial.
    Total estimated burden: 2,408 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $147,476 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-23549 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P