[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27594-27596]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10743]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0293; FRL-10023-74]

Nominations to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides the names, addresses, and professional
affiliations of persons recently nominated to serve on the Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) established under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Panel was created on
November 28, 1975, and made a permanent Panel by amendment to FIFRA,
dated October 25, 1988. The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting
new members to serve on the panel because of the upcoming expirations
of membership terms. Current members of the SAP are eligible for
reappointment during this period. Therefore, the appointments completed
over the next year may include a mix of newly appointed and reappointed
members. As additional background, the biographies of current SAP
members are available on the FIFRA SAP website at: https://www.epa.gov/sap. Public comments on the current nominations are invited, as these
comments will be

used to assist the Agency in selecting the new members for the
chartered SAP.

DATES: Comments identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0293,
must be received on or before June 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0293, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not electronically submit any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Comments submitted to the
EPA, including any personal information that is in the body of the
submission, will be publicly posted to https://www.regulations.gov and
are also made available for in-person viewing at the EPA Docket
Center's Reading Room. There are some exceptions. Please see additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Please note that due to the public health concerns related to
COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Public Reading Room are
closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The EPA/DC staff continue
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For
the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access,
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Knott, M.S., Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), Office of Program Support, Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Given other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. If your comments contain any information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special
instructions before submitting your comments.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#tips.

II. Background

    The FIFRA SAP serves as a scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is
structured to provide independent scientific advice, information, and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. The FIFRA SAP is a federal advisory committee established
in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). The FIFRA SAP
is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are
appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation
(NSF). Members serve staggered terms of appointment, generally of three
to six years duration. FIFRA established a Science Review Board (SRB)
consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the FIFRA SAP
on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP. As
a scientific peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments,
evaluations, and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and
quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP
are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications,
including training and experience, to provide expert advice and
recommendations to the Agency.

III. Charter

    A Charter for the FIFRA SAP, dated October 17, 2020, was issued in
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. Appendix). The Charter
provides for open meetings with opportunities for public participation.

IV. Nominees

A. Qualifications of Members

    Members are scientists who have sufficient professional
qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert
comments on the impact of pesticides on human health and the
environment. In accordance with section 25(d)(1) of FIFRA, the
Administrator shall require nominees to the FIFRA SAP to furnish
information concerning their professional qualifications, including
educational background, employment history, and scientific
publications. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the FIFRA SAP
by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a
federal department or agency, or their employment by a federal
department or agency (except the EPA). FIFRA further stipulates that
the Agency publish the name, address, and professional affiliation of
the nominees in the Federal Register.

B. Applicability of Existing Regulations

    With respect to the requirements of section 25(d) of FIFRA that the
Administrator promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest,
FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of the Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 2635, conflict of interest statutes in Title
18 of the United States Code, and related regulations. Each nominee
selected by the Administrator, before being formally appointed, is
required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form, which
shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's
sources of research support, if any.

C. Process of Obtaining Nominees

    The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting new members to
serve on the panel to address upcoming expirations of membership terms.
    On February 5, 2021, in accordance with the provisions of section
25(d) of FIFRA, EPA requested that the NIH and the NSF nominate
scientists to fill vacancies occurring on the FIFRA SAP. The Agency
requested that NIH and NSF nominate experts in the fields of ecological
and human exposure assessment, including expertise in environmental
fate and transport of chemicals, mathematical biostatistics, New
Approach Methodologies (NAMs), including in vitro to in vivo
extrapolation (IVIVE), and expertise in toxicology, including
carcinogenicity and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling
(PBPK).

Experts with specific experience in risk assessment, dose response
analysis, cheminformatics, bioinformatics, and genomics are preferred.
Nominees should be well published and current in their fields of
expertise.
    NIH and NSF responded, providing the Agency with a total of 25
nominees. One nominee, Dr. Jeffrey Bloomquist, Ph.D., of the University
of Florida is a member of the FIFRA SAP with a current term ending in
2022. Therefore, he is not considered further at this time. Of the
remaining 24 nominees, 10 are interested and available to actively
participate in FIFRA SAP meetings (see Unit IV.D.).
    The following 14 individuals are not available to be considered
further for membership at this time:

    1. Joseph Braun, Ph.D., Brown University, Providence, Rhode
Island.
    2. Brenda Eskanazi, Ph.D., University of California-Berkeley,
Berkeley, California.
    3. Elaine Faustman, Ph.D., University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington.
    4. Phillipe Grandjean, Ph.D., Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public
Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
    5. Paul Hollenberg, Ph.D., University of Michigan Medical
School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
    6. Mary K. O'Rourke, Ph.D., University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
    7. Angela Peace, Ph.D., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
    8. Kenneth Portier, Ph.D., Independent Consultant, Atlanta,
Georgia.
    9. Jason Rohr, Ph.D., University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
Indiana.
    10. Nathaniel Scholz, Ph.D., NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, Seattle, Washington.
    11. Ronald Tjeerdema, Ph.D., University of California-Davis,
Davis, California.
    12. Tim Verslycke, Ph.D., Gradient Corp., Boston, Massachusetts.
    13. Christopher P. Weis, Ph.D., National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland.
    14. William Wuest, Ph.D., Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

D. Interested and Available Nominees

    The following are the names, addresses, and professional
affiliations of current nominees being considered for membership on the
FIFRA SAP. Selected biographical data for each nominee is available in
the public docket at www.regulations.gov (docket identification (ID)
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0293) and through the FIFRA SAP website at
https://www.epa.gov/sap. The Agency, at this time, anticipates
selecting new members to fill upcoming vacancies occurring on the
Panel:

    1. Dana Barr, Ph.D., Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
    2. Veronica Berrocal, Ph.D., University of California, Irvine,
California.
    3. Asa Bradman, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley,
California.
    4. Glenn Allen Burton, Ph.D., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
    5. Celia Chen, Ph.D., Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
    6. Richard DiGiulio Ph.D., Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina.
    7. Valery Forbes, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
    8. Cheryl A. Murphy, Ph.D., Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan.
    9. Virginia Rauh, Ph.D., Columbia University, New York, New
York.
    10. Lisa M. Sweeney, Ph.D., UES, Inc., Dayton, Ohio.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 5
U.S.C. Appendix.

    Dated: May 17, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-10743 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4226]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0003]

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Gentamicin Sulfate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of an original abbreviated new
animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Cross Vetpharm Group, Ltd. The
ANADA provides for use of gentamicin sulfate soluble powder used to
make medicated drinking water for swine.

DATES: This rule is effective January 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-170), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cross Vetpharm Group, Ltd., Broomhill Rd.,
Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland, filed ANADA 200-494 for use of GENTAMED
(gentamicin sulfate) Soluble Powder used to make medicated drinking
water for swine. Cross Vetpharm Group's Gentamicin Soluble Powder is
approved as a generic copy of GARACIN (gentamicin sulfate) Soluble
Powder, sponsored by Intervet Inc., under NADA 133-836. The abbreviated
application is approved as of December 14, 2011, and the regulations
are amended in 21 CFR 520.1044c to reflect the approval.
    In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR
part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and
effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of
this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is of
a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. Revise Sec.  520.1044c to read as follows:

Sec.  520.1044c  Gentamicin sulfate powder.

    (a) Specifications. Each gram of powder contains gentamicin sulfate
equivalent to:
    (1) 16.7, 66.7, or 333.3 milligrams (mg) gentamicin.
    (2) 333.3 mg gentamicin.
    (b) Sponsors. See sponsors in Sec.  510.600(c) of this chapter for
use as in paragraph (d) of this section as follows:
    (1) No. 000061 for products described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
    (2) Nos. 057561 and 061623 for product described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
    (c) Related tolerances. See Sec.  556.300 of this chapter.
    (d) Conditions of use in swine--(1) Amount. Administer in drinking
water for 3 consecutive days as follows:
    (i) For colibacillosis: Gentamicin sulfate equivalent to 25 mg of
gentamicin per gallon of drinking water to provide 0.5 mg per pound of
body weight per day;
    (ii) For swine dysentery: Gentamicin sulfate equivalent to 50 mg of
gentamicin per gallon of drinking water to provide 1 mg per pound of
body weight per day. Treatment may be repeated if dysentery recurs.
    (2) Indications for use. For control and treatment of
colibacillosis in weanling swine caused by strains of Escherichia coli
sensitive to gentamicin, and for control and treatment of swine
dysentery associated with Treponema hyodysenteriae.
    (3) Limitations. For use in swine drinking water only. Do not store
or offer medicated drinking water in rusty containers since the drug is
quickly destroyed in such containers. Medicated drinking water should
be prepared daily and be the sole source of drinking water.
    (4) Withdrawal period. 10 days.

    Dated: January 23, 2012.
William T. Flynn,
Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2012-1753 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64699-64700]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0231; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-46]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-
377; Sitka, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes RNAV T-route, T-377, in the vicinity
of Sitka, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-route
modernization project for the state of Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, December 29, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it expands the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improve
the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System
by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2022-0231 in the Federal Register (87 FR 16669; March 24, 2022),
establishing RNAV T-route T-377, in the vicinity of Sitka, AK in
support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for
the state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-377
in the vicinity of Sitka, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-
route modernization project in the state of Alaska.
    The new route is described below.
    T-377: RNAV T-route, T-377, extends from the Annette Island, AK
(ANN), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
to the Biorka Island, AK, (BKA) VOR and Tactical Air Navigation
facility (VORTAC), in anticipation of the decommissioning of Sitka, AK
(SIT), and Nichols, AK (ICK), Non-Directional Beacons (NDB). T-377
provides alternate navigation options for Colored Federal airways A-1
and B-28.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of establishing
RNAV route T-377 in the vicinity of Sitka, AK qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-
6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review
the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-377 Annette Island, AK (ANN) to Biorka Island, AK (BKA) [New]
Annette Island, AK (ANN)                        VOR/DME                        (Lat. 55[deg]03'37.47'' N, long. 131[deg]34'42.24'' W)
INEPE, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 55[deg]35'25.84'' N, long. 133[deg]24'52.15'' W)
FOROP, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 56[deg]05'08.84'' N, long. 134[deg]21'39.59'' W)
Biorka Island, AK (BKA)                         VORTAC                         (Lat. 56[deg]51'33.87'' N, long. 135[deg]33'04.72'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 17, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-22781 Filed 10-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66211-66220]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM11-17-000]

Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis
Through Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data From Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System Operators

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------N
otice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to revise its regulations to require each regional transmission
organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to
electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data
related to the markets that it administers. Ongoing electronic delivery
of data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market
awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors,
financial transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, and
interchange pricing will facilitate the Commission's development and
evaluation of its policies and regulations and will enhance Commission
efforts to detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior, or
ineffective market rules, thereby helping to ensure just and reasonable
rates.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule are due December 27, 2011.
    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Sauer (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Christopher Daignault (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

October 20, 2011.
    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes, pursuant to sections
301(b) and 307(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ to amend its
regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO)
and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the
Commission, on an ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it
administers. Ongoing electronic delivery of data relating to physical
and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal
cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights (FTR),
internal bilateral contracts, and interchange pricing will facilitate
the Commission's development and evaluation of its policies and
regulations and will enhance Commission efforts to detect anti-
competitive or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules,
thereby helping to ensure just and reasonable rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 825(b), 825f(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Wholesale electricity markets have witnessed tremendous change
in recent years. In the decades after the 1935 enactment of the FPA,
the industry was characterized by self-sufficient, vertically
integrated utilities. Most utilities built their own generation,
transmission, and distribution facilities

and sold electricity to their own wholesale and retail customers.
During this time, the Commission regulated jurisdictional entities'
rates through traditional cost-based ratemaking. Cost-based rate
regulation ensures that rates are just and reasonable by
administratively determining an entity's cost of providing service.
Changes in national policy and other forces led to increased
coordination and competition in the late 1960s and 1970s,\2\ and the
enactment of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).\3\ The
1980s and early 1990s experienced an increased adoption of market-based
ratemaking and wholesale power sales competition to promote efficiency
and to lower wholesale power prices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Counted among such forces are the Northeast blackout of 1965
and the responses to perceived transmission system insufficiencies,
as well as the subsequent oil crisis of 1973. For a discussion of
developments following the 1965 blackout, see William F. Fox, Jr.,
Federal Regulation of Energy 749, 755 (1983 & Supp. 1993), and
Stephen Breyer and Paul W. MacAvoy, The Federal Power Commission and
the Coordination Problem in the Electrical Power Industry, 46 S.
Cal. L. Rev. 661, 661 (1973).
    \3\ Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.
95-617, 92 Stat. 3117 (1978) (codified as amended in scattered
sections of 16 U.S.C.); see, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 824a-3, 824i, 824j.
    \4\ See, e.g., Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 62 FERC ] 61,016, at
61,143 & n.16, 61,149 (1993) (accepting non-traditional, market-
based rates as consistent with primary regulatory goal of ensuring
lowest reasonable cost energy to consumers, provided service is
reliable and the seller demonstrates a lack of market power); Pac.
Gas & Elec. Co., 38 FERC ] 61,242, at 61,790 (1987) (accepting
proposed competitive rates because ``competition * * * encourages
utilities to make efficient decisions with a minimum of regulatory
intervention [and, u]ltimately, consumers should benefit from lower
prices as competition improves efficiency.''), modifying on other
ground, 47 FERC ] 61,121 (1989), modified, 50 FERC ] 61,339 (1990),
modified sub nom. W. Sys. Power Pool, 55 FERC ] 61,099, at 61,319
(addressing applicant's failure to eliminate anticompetitive effects
by mitigating market power), granting stay, 55 FERC ] 61,154, reh'g
granted in part, 55 FERC ] 61,495 (1991), modified, 59 FERC ] 61,249
(1992); Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 25 FERC ] 61,469, at 62,038
(1983) (averring that ``competition penalizes a seller that is
inefficient or has an unreasonable pricing strategy[; consequently,]
consumers * * * benefit because the improvements in efficiency lead
to lower prices.''); see also Heartland Energy Servs., Inc., 68 FERC
] 61,223 (1994) (reviewing early Commission decisions granting
market-based rate authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. National policy fostered further market evolution by encouraging
increased competition among generators through the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (EPAct 1992).\5\ Specifically, EPAct 1992 eased regulatory
restrictions so that independent and affiliate generators could more
easily enter, and compete in, wholesale electricity markets. EPAct 1992
also expanded the Commission's authority to address undue
discrimination in transmission access in order to promote wholesale
competition. In subsequent orders, the Commission found that the
availability of transmission service enhances competition in power
markets, by increasing power supply options of buyers and power sales
options of sellers, and leads to lower rates for consumers.\6\ By the
mid-1990s, the Commission had determined that additional measures were
needed to address undue discrimination in transmission access and
issued Order Nos. 888\7\ and 889,\8\ which required ``open access''
transmission service. In doing so, the Commission explained that its
action ``remove[s] impediments to competition in the wholesale power
marketplace and * * * bring[s] more efficient, lower cost power to the
Nation's electricity customers.'' \9\ The Commission subsequently
issued Order No. 890,\10\ to further remedy undue discrimination and
thereby remove barriers to competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992).
    \6\ Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 65 FERC ]
61,125, at 61,615, reh'g dismissed, 65 FERC ] 61,372 (1993), final
order, 67 FERC ] 61,167 (1994), order on reh'g, 74 FERC ] 61,006
(1996).
    \7\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 (1996), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048, order on reh'g, Order
No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C,
82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom.
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
    \8\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,035 (1996), order
on reh'g, Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,049, reh'g
denied, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC ] 61,253 (1997).
    \9\ Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 at 31,634.
    \10\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241,
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228 (2009), order on
clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In addition to addressing undue discrimination in transmission
access, Order No. 888 encouraged the formation of ISOs. The Commission
posited that ``ISOs have great potential to assist us and the industry
to help provide regional efficiencies, to facilitate economically
efficient pricing, and, especially in the context of power pools, to
remedy undue discrimination and mitigate market power.'' \11\ To
facilitate ISO formation and foster independent operation of the
transmission grid, the Commission suggested that utilities should
voluntarily transfer operating control of their transmission facilities
to an ISO. Four years later, in Order No. 2000,\12\ the Commission
encouraged the voluntary formation of RTOs to administer the
transmission grid on a regional basis. To date, the Commission has
approved six RTOs and ISOs: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM); New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO); Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO); ISO New England Inc.
(ISO-NE); California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO);
and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP). Together, these six RTOs and ISOs
serve more than half of the United States' wholesale electricity
demand.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 at 31,652; see
also id. at 31,730-32.
    \12\ Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 FR
809 (Jan. 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,089 (1999), order on
reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,092 (2000), aff'd
sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington v.
FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    \13\ See ISO/RTO Council, Progress of Organized Wholesale
Electriciy Markets in North America 1 (2007), http://www.isorto.org/
atf/cf/%7B5B4E85C6-7EAC-40A0-8DC3-003829518EBD%7D/IRC_State_of_
the_Markets_Report_103007.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The wholesale electricity markets operated by Commission-
approved RTOs/ISOs have evolved since their inception and will likely
continue to do so as advances in technology usher in additional
competing resources, computational efficiencies, new products, and new
types of market participants. Today, for example, market participants
include independent generating resources, storage devices, demand
response and energy efficiency providers, marketers and traders,
vertically integrated utilities, power marketing administrations,
municipalities and cooperatives, among others.
    6. Substantial changes also have occurred with respect to the
manner in which electricity is bought and sold. For example, when the
IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) was established in 2000, the vast
majority of electricity sales transacted on ICE contained requirements
for physical delivery. Electricity bought or sold without requirements
for physical delivery is commonly referred to as a financial
electricity product. Beginning in 2004, the volume of financial
electricity products bought and sold on ICE eclipsed that of
electricity bought and sold on ICE with physical delivery requirements.
The financial electricity product volumes on ICE also surpassed
electricity volumes reported to the Commission through Electric
Quarterly

Reports (EQR) in several markets.\14\ Given that financial electricity
products commonly settle using published prices from Commission-
jurisdictional markets, changes in the prices of physical electricity
products impact the values of both physical and financial electricity
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2008 State of the
Markets Report (2009), available at http://www.ferc.gov/market-
oversight/st-mkt-ovr/2008-som-final.pdf. We also note that financial
electricity products may be transacted (1) Through exchanges besides
ICE (e.g., NYMEX and Nodal Exchange), (2) by voice brokers, (3)
bilaterally, or (4) by using other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Recognizing the importance of information relating to market
trading and market oversight, the Commission issued Order No. 2001 \15\
and Order No. 697,\16\ establishing reporting requirements for entities
selling under market-based rates. As one keen observer stated, in this
regard, ``[i]nformation is the key to a viable electricity market and
to preventing market manipulation.'' \17\ In addition, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) \18\ gave the Commission expanded
authority to address market manipulation,\19\ including the ability to
assess civil fines and seek criminal penalties.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100
FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342,
order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002),
order directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334, order
refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352
(2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ] 61,060
(2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 120
FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-H,
121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, Order
No. 2001-I, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,282 (2008).
    \16\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252, clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007),
order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,268,
clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,285 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,291 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-
D, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,305 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Montana
Consumer Counsel v. FERC, No. 08-71827, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20724
(9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011). In its decision upholding Order No. 697,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that monitoring must be
accompanied by enforcement because ``[w]ithout enforcement, there is
little reason to believe that sellers will police themselves.''
Montana Consumer Counsel, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20724 at *19 n.5.
    \17\ Charles H. Koch, Jr., Collaborative Governance: Lessons for
Europe from U.S. Electricity Restructuring, 61 Admin. L. Rev. 71, 97
(2009).
    \18\ Public Law No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
    \19\ See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 824v.
    \20\ See 16 U.S.C. 825o (criminal penalties); 16 U.S.C. 825o-1
(civil fines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Independent market monitoring by RTO/ISO market monitoring units
(MMU) is an important means to evaluate market developments and to
identify and deter market abuses and manipulation. In Order No. 2000,
the Commission identified market monitoring as a basic function of an
RTO.\21\ The Commission refined its approach to MMUs in a 2005 policy
statement and in Order No. 719.\22\ In the 2005 Policy Statement, the
Commission outlined tasks for MMUs to perform in order to enhance the
competitive structure of RTO/ISO markets.\23\ Subsequently, in Order
No. 719, the Commission further clarified requirements for MMU
functions, independence, and information sharing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Prior to this first generic consideration of MMUs in Order
No. 2000, the Commission addressed market monitoring in connection
with individual RTO/ISO proposals. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 77 FERC
] 61,265 (1996), order on reh'g, 81 FERC ] 61,122 (1997), order on
clarification, 83 FERC ] 61,033 (1998) (requiring the ISO to file a
detailed monitoring plan and listing minimum elements for such a
plan); Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, 81 FERC ]
61,257 (1997) (requiring PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to develop a
market monitoring program to evaluate market power and market design
flaws).
    \22\ Market Monitoring Units in Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System Operators, 111 FERC ] 61,267
(2005) (2005 Policy Statement); Wholesale Competition in Regions
with Organized Electric Markets, Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,281 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 719-A, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,292 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 719-B, 129 FERC ]
61,252 (2009).
    \23\ 2005 Policy Statement, 111 FERC ] 61,267 at P 2.
    \24\ Specifically, MMU functions consist of evaluating existing
and proposed market rules, tariff provisions, and market design
elements and recommending changes, if applicable; reviewing and
reporting on the performance of wholesale markets; and identifying
and notifying the Commission of behavior that may require
investigation. See Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,281 at P
354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The Commission has acknowledged that MMUs perform a vital and
necessary function in market oversight \25\ but that they do not
supplant the Commission's authority.\26\ Rather, MMUs are designed to
provide the Commission with an additional means of detecting market
power abuses, market design flaws, and opportunities for improvements
in market efficiency.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,281 at P
314.
    \26\ Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,089 at 31,156-57.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    10. In this NOPR, the Commission proposes to revise its regulations
to require each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver to the
Commission, on an ongoing, non-public basis, data related to the
markets that it administers; namely, data relating to physical and
virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost
estimates, shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and
interchange pricing. To facilitate such ongoing, electronic delivery,
the Commission proposes that each RTO and ISO use automated electronic
procedures to provide this data.
    11. The Commission is statutorily obligated to ensure that sales of
electricity in wholesale markets are made at just and reasonable
rates,\28\ and to address market manipulation in connection with the
purchase or sale of electricity subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.\29\ Toward that end, section 301(b) of the FPA provides
that the Commission shall at all times have access to and the right to
inspect and examine all accounts and records of public utilities.\30\
In this NOPR, and pursuant to its authority under section 301(b), the
Commission proposes to seek ongoing electronic delivery of data
including accounts and records of the RTOs/ISOs, which are public
utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824e.
    \29\ See 16 U.S.C. 824v.
    \30\ 16 U.S.C. 825(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Moreover, the Commission also has authority pursuant to section
307(a) of the FPA to investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or
matters it may deem necessary or proper to determine whether any
person, electric utility, transmitting utility, or other entity may
have violated or might violate the FPA or the Commission's regulations,
or to aid in the enforcement of the FPA or the Commission regulations,
or to obtain information about wholesale power sales or the
transmission of power in interstate commerce.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 16 U.S.C. 825f(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. As markets continue to evolve with increased levels of
sophistication, the Commission must continue to evaluate the type of
data necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates. The Commission's
market monitoring and surveillance capabilities and associated data
requirements must keep pace with market developments and evolve along
with the markets. Further, the Commission's evaluation of the market
rules, regulations, and policies should be informed by the data
collection proposed herein. Electronic delivery of the types of data
proposed herein will help to bring the Commission's access to RTO/ISO
data in sync with the types and levels of activity in those markets and
help to ensure that rates are just and reasonable.
    14. Most of the data discussed in this NOPR are already collected
and stored by the RTOs/ISOs in order to administer

their markets. To the extent that an RTO/ISO does not already collect
specific data, the Commission is not proposing to require either the
collection of such data from market participants or its electronic
delivery to the Commission. The Commission also proposes that key
identifiers and other descriptive details necessary to understand the
data be included in the data electronically delivered to the
Commission. Finally, the Commission proposes that each RTO/ISO
electronically deliver the data to the Commission using a common
transfer method and format (i.e., Secure File Transfer Protocol and
XML), which are described below. The Commission is not proposing that
each RTO/ISO aggregate or materially modify the data prior to
electronic delivery to the Commission.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Commission is currently considering providing an XML
Schema Definition (XSD) that describes the structure of the XML
document to be electronically delivered to the Commission. XSD
defines those elements, attributes, data types, and any default or
fixed values in the XML. Depending on how the requested data is
stored by each RTO/ISO, some data transformation may be required to
prepare XML that is consistent with the XSD. For example, one RTO/
ISO might store dates in MM-DD-YYYY format while the rest use YYYY-
MM-DD format. As such, an XSD might specify that dates in the XML be
electronically delivered to the Commission in YYYY-MM-DD format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. This NOPR proposes to require an automated data delivery
process, in part, to minimize any burden on RTOs/ISOs. The Commission
currently can request this data from individual RTOs and ISOs on an ad
hoc basis. Such recurrent, periodic data requests may require more
Commission and RTO/ISO resources than the proposed electronic delivery
of this data using an automated process.
    16. Although the six RTOs/ISOs have developed different wholesale
electricity market designs, there are many similarities in the data
that they use to administer these markets. Generally speaking, market
participants with their own supply resources or with supply resources
under contract submit energy supply offers indicating the price at
which they are willing to supply various quantities of energy. Load-
serving entities submit demand bids indicating the price at which they
are willing to buy various quantities of energy. The supply offers pass
through market power screens. These screens are used to determine
whether the resources can affect the market price and whether the
offers should be mitigated. If an energy supply offer triggers the
application of mitigation, it is replaced with a mitigated energy
supply offer. Generally, mitigated energy supply offers are calculated
using estimated marginal cost data, which approximate generators' costs
under different conditions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The estimated marginal cost data the Commission proposes to
receive through this NOPR do not include individual generators'
actual costs, revenues, or profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Similar to the process for submitting energy offers and bids,
market participants with their own supply resources or with supply
resources under contract also submit offers to provide ancillary
services and capacity services.\34\ These offers typically indicate a
price at which a market participant is willing to provide the service
and, like the energy supply offers discussed above, are subject to
mitigation when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ We note that currently CAISO and SPP do not administer a
centralized capacity market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Entities with or without physical assets or load obligations
may also submit ``virtual'' supply offers and demand bids in the RTO/
ISO day-ahead markets. These virtual offers and bids contribute to
price formation in RTO/ISO markets. Further, entities located outside
of the RTO/ISO footprint may submit supply offers and demand bids in
the form of interchange offers and bids.
    19. The RTOs/ISOs match the above-described inputs through an
intricate process designed to use the lowest-cost resources to meet
demand.\35\ This process yields pricing signals through locational
marginal pricing (LMP) that determine which supply offers and demand
bids are selected (and which would also inform long-term planning,
e.g., decisions on whether to enter and exit markets). Supply offers
that are selected are required to provide a specific amount of service.
For example, resources that are selected in the day-ahead energy market
will be given an energy market award that specifies the amount of
energy a particular resource is financially obligated to supply. These
market awards are determined by each resource's supply offer and the
corresponding day-ahead LMP. Finally, the RTO/ISO provides dispatch
instructions for resources in real time. Real-time compensation is
determined by the dispatch instructions, metered output, and the
corresponding LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ We note that other inputs, including generation
capabilities and other system costs, inter alia, are used by RTOs/
ISOs to arrive at the lowest-cost solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. LMP is comprised of three components: The system-wide price of
energy, transmission line losses, and the congestion charge. The
congestion charge component of LMP is calculated using shift factors
when modeled flows are above the intended physical capability of given
transmission facilities. A shift factor reflects the positive or
negative percentage effect that a one-megawatt change in generation
output or demand will have on an identified constraint. These shift
factors are used to create a dispatch strategy that is consistent with
physical and other reliability constraints. In other words, shift
factors allow RTOs/ISOs to manage transmission constraints through
congestion charge price signals that relate to a generator's or load's
influence on a specific constraint.
    21. Prices in the RTO/ISO day-ahead markets and real-time balancing
markets can be volatile depending on market conditions. Products
designed to hedge RTO/ISO price volatility have provided valuable tools
for RTO/ISO market participants to secure predictable revenue streams
or reduce price risk associated with generation costs. These price
hedging tools have evolved concurrently with changes in wholesale
electricity markets.
    22. In the RTO/ISO markets, market participants can limit price
risk using several tools, notably, virtual offers and bids, FTRs, and
internal bilateral contracts. Virtual offers and bids (collectively,
virtuals) allow market participants the opportunity, among other
things, to transfer price risk between day-ahead and real-time markets
within an RTO/ISO. When virtuals are scheduled in the day-ahead market,
the financial commitment is established at published day-ahead prices,
and virtuals are automatically liquidated with the opposite buy/sell
position, in most cases at real-time prices. Virtuals are not backed by
physical assets. If a load-serving entity determines that it might need
to purchase supply from real-time markets,\36\ the load-serving entity
could use virtuals to ``lock-in'' a day-ahead price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ A load-serving entity might determine such a need to
purchase supply, for example, because of potential weather-related
events or generator malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. FTRs provide market participants with a mechanism to hedge
transmission costs under LMP-based market designs. In general, load-
serving entities in RTOs/ISOs are allocated either FTRs or transmission
rights convertible into FTRs. This allocation is often based on usage
during an historical period. Allocated FTRs are limited to load-serving
entities and to those who funded construction of specific transmission
facilities. Other FTRs are auctioned, and such FTRs generally can be
purchased by creditworthy entities. Moreover, FTRs

can be resold outside of the RTO/ISO auction and allocation procedures.
Transactions occurring outside of the RTO/ISO allocation and auction
procedures are commonly referred to as secondary market transactions.
    24. Finally, internal bilateral contracts allow market participants
to hedge energy costs under LMP-based market designs. In RTOs/ISOs,
market participants can enter into bilateral agreements and use the
RTO/ISO to perform settlement functions. These internal bilateral
contracts typically rely on a bilaterally negotiated price rather than
the potentially more volatile RTO/ISO LMP-based energy price, and they
allow market participants the opportunity to transfer risks relating to
energy costs among market participants. Thus, a load-serving entity may
enter into an internal bilateral contract with a supplier to settle its
energy costs at a predetermined rate rather than at the applicable LMP.
If the market participant reports this internal bilateral contract to
the RTO/ISO, the RTO/ISO would then account for this agreement in its
settlement process.
    25. RTO/ISO price-hedging products have been created outside of the
RTO/ISO markets as well. Electricity futures were first traded on NYMEX
in March 1996.\37\ Electricity futures, which are traded on organized
exchanges, and electricity forwards, which are traded outside of
organized exchanges, are transactions that typically specify a quantity
of physical electricity to be delivered at a specific time and place in
the future at an agreed-upon price.\38\ A generation owner can sell
output from its facility at a pre-determined price by entering into
futures or forward transactions even as the RTO/ISO price varies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ S.J. Deng and S.S. Oren, Electricity derivatives and risk
management, 31 Energy 940, 943 (2006), available at http://
www.sciencedirect.com.
    \38\ See id. at 942-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In recent years, other products for hedging RTO/ISO prices have
developed, such as electricity swaps. Swaps are similar to electricity
futures and forwards, but swaps are financial transactions that do not
require physical delivery. Electricity swaps can be bought or sold at a
given ``fixed'' price and subsequently settle at a ``floating''
published daily electricity price; this is typically referred to as a
``fixed-for-floating'' swap. Swaps can act as a hedge when used
alongside physical electricity sales, by guaranteeing the generation
owner an agreed upon price, notwithstanding fluctuation in the
published electricity price. Specifically, if the published daily
electricity price is higher than the agreed upon price, the generation
owner pays the difference to the counter-party to the swap but still
receives the agreed upon price.\39\ This effectively guarantees a
predictable revenue stream to the generation owner. RTO/ISO posted
prices are one of the commonly referenced settlement values used in
electricity swaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ For example, Generator sells to the RTO/ISO at a market-
based rate, which varies according to the market. As a hedge,
Generator sells a financial swap to Counter-party at $30/MWh. If the
published electricity price that Generator receives on day one is
$20/MWh, Counter-party pays Generator the difference, i.e., $10 ($30
minus $20). Thus, Generator receives the agreed upon price of $30/
MWh. Conversely, if the published electricity price that Generator
receives on day two is $45/MWh, Generator owes Counter-party the
difference, i.e., $15 ($45 minus $30). Thus, Generator again
receives the agreed upon price of $30/MWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. To the extent that any market participant is willing to
manipulate the market, that market participant would have an incentive
to manipulate RTO/ISO prices that are used to settle values for
electricity products, including financial products such as electricity
swaps. The likelihood of an attempt at market manipulation can be
reduced if the perceived cost of manipulation exceeds the perceived
benefit. For example, a market participant may wish to drive up an RTO/
ISO price because that market participant also holds an electricity
swap that benefits from a higher RTO/ISO price. In that vein, the
market participant may offer supply into the RTO/ISO market at levels
above its own marginal costs, driving up an RTO/ISO price by requiring
a higher-priced unit to be selected. That market participant would
receive less revenue from the RTO/ISO due to the lost sales opportunity
from its own higher-priced offer not being selected. However, in this
example, the market participant may be able to more than offset the
reduction in revenue through the benefit of its electricity swap
associated with the higher RTO/ISO price.
    28. Given the history of electricity markets it regulates, the
Commission expects that such markets will continue to evolve, that new
physical and financial products will be formed, and that increasingly
complex manipulative or other anti-competitive strategies may be
created.

A. Market Monitoring and Surveillance

    29. To keep pace with market developments, the Commission is
proposing to establish ongoing, electronic delivery of data from each
RTO and ISO to enhance its market monitoring and surveillance efforts.
By seeking electronic delivery of the data outlined in this NOPR, the
Commission does not seek to displace or modify any of the existing
market monitoring functions performed by MMUs. Nor do we intend our
proposal to be perceived as an implicit criticism of the MMUs'
performance. Instead, this data will help the Commission detect anti-
competitive or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules, and
thus help ensure just and reasonable rates.
    30. Among other objectives, the Commission will use the data it
proposes to receive as part of automated screens and other analyses
designed to detect attempts to manipulate RTO/ISO pricing for the
purpose of benefiting products that settle using RTO/ISO pricing and to
detect abuses involving interchange transactions. Supply offer, demand
bid, virtual, and FTR data will assist the Commission in understanding
how market participants are positioning themselves in RTO/ISO markets.
For example, market participants attempting to move RTO/ISO settlement
pricing might offer supply into the RTO/ISO market at uncompetitive
prices. Likewise, market participants could target specific LMP prices
using virtual offers and bids. Because congestion impacts are often
spread across many price nodes (and result in many different LMPs)
through shift factors, these virtual offers and bids need not be placed
at the specific price node for which a market participant might be
attempting to move the LMP. Estimated marginal cost and shift factor
data will enhance the Commission's ability to identify such behavior
that may be designed to impact RTO/ISO pricing. Moreover, interchange
pricing data will assist the Commission's efforts to identify anomalous
or uneconomic electricity interchange schedules; electricity schedules
between markets that are not consistent with pricing signals could be a
source of market inefficiency or raise other anti-competitive concerns.
    31. Securing data concerning the markets that the RTOs/ISOs
administer is part of the Commission's broader effort to enhance its
market monitoring and surveillance capabilities. Specifically, in a
recently issued NOPR on Commission access to electronic tag (e-Tag)
data,\40\ the Commission proposed to make e-Tag data available to the
Commission to assist in monitoring the market and preventing
manipulation, among other things. In yet another NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require additional contract and transaction data from those
who file

EQRs and to extend the EQR filing requirements to wholesale market
participants which fall outside the Commission's FPA section 205
jurisdiction.\41\ The Commission stated that these proposals would
strengthen the Commission's ability to identify potential exercises of
market power or manipulation. We believe that the same is true here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Availability of E-Tag Information to Commission Staff,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,675 (2011).
    \41\ Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220
of The Federal Power Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 32,676 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Utilizing the data the Commission proposes to receive in this
NOPR and the two NOPRs addressed above could greatly enhance the
Commission's market monitoring and surveillance capabilities. The data
will permit the Commission to improve its screening of market
participants for illicit behavior, making such conduct more difficult
to mask. In addition, the data the Commission proposes to collect in
these NOPRs could provide a better picture of legitimate market
activity and lessen the possibility that market monitoring and
surveillance screens will result in error.

B. Commission Policies and Regulations

    33. In overseeing wholesale electricity markets, the Commission
evaluates, in response to submissions or on its own motion, existing
market designs and the effectiveness of market rules. The Commission
proposes to use RTO/ISO market data to more effectively carry out these
functions. Electronic delivery of this data will enable the Commission
to better identify ineffective market rules and better inform
Commission policies and decision-making, and thus help prevent anti-
competitive behavior and ensure just and reasonable rates.
    34. We believe that electronic delivery of RTO/ISO market data will
provide the Commission with empirical information that will augment
ongoing industry outreach in determining the effectiveness of the
Commission-approved market rules and the efficiency of existing market
designs in producing just and reasonable rates. Electronic delivery of
the market data sought would allow the Commission to perform better
ongoing analysis as markets evolve and new resources begin
participating in these markets. For example, the market data sought
should enable the Commission to assess both the scheduling practices of
renewable resources and how renewable energy schedules compare with
actual real-time performance. Because of its unique position, the
Commission will be able to perform such analysis across the RTO/ISO
markets. This cross-market analysis will enhance the Commission's
ongoing efforts to assess the performance of different market designs
and rules.
    35. In seeking electronic delivery of this data, the Commission
emphasizes that it does not seek to displace existing MMU efforts to
evaluate market rules and market designs nor is it proposing to modify
any of the market monitoring functions performed by MMUs. Rather, the
Commission is seeking to augment the assessments currently being
performed by MMUs, thus strengthening the Commission's regulatory
capabilities through the ongoing electronic delivery of RTO/ISO market
data.

C. Requested Data

    36. As part of this rulemaking, the Commission proposes to require
ongoing electronic delivery of, the data (e.g., the information to be
included in the datasets) described below. The Commission invites
comment on these data requirements:
    1. Supply offers and demand bids for energy and ancillary
services--The Commission is proposing that RTOs/ISOs provide their data
on supply offers and demand bids submitted to RTO/ISO markets. This
dataset would include all offers and bids for energy and ancillary
services. This dataset would also include offers and bids submitted for
interchange transactions, as well as those submitted without economic
consideration, i.e., self schedules.
    2. Virtual offers and bids--The Commission is proposing that RTOs/
ISOs provide their data on virtual supply offers and virtual demand
bids submitted to RTO/ISO markets.
    3. Energy/ancillary service awards--The Commission is proposing
that RTOs/ISOs provide their data on market awards for energy and
ancillary services. This dataset would include the quantity and price
of all market awards for energy and ancillary services. The dataset
would also identify resources that are self-scheduled.
    4. Capacity market offers, designations, and prices--For RTOs/ISOs
with centralized capacity markets, the Commission is proposing to
require RTOs/ISOs to provide their data on capacity offers as well as
capacity market outcomes or designations. This dataset would identify
capacity resources, the amount of procured capacity, and the applicable
capacity market price.
    5. Resource output--The Commission is proposing that RTOs/ISOs
provide their data on resource output data used in market settlements.
This dataset would include details used in market settlements,
including RTO/ISO dispatch instructions (i.e., the output that a
dispatched resource is expected to produce in real-time) for energy or
ancillary services, or whether resources are operating at self-
scheduled output levels, and measured output levels.
    6. Marginal cost estimates--The Commission is proposing that RTOs/
ISOs provide their data on marginal cost estimates; such estimates are
typically generated for the potential replacement of supply offers in
market power mitigation procedures. This dataset would include all
marginal cost estimates that have been developed, and not just those
estimates that were used to generate mitigated supply offers. The
Commission is seeking just the resulting marginal cost estimates
themselves, however, and is not proposing that RTOs/ISOs provide the
inputs that allow for calculation of those estimates. Further, the
Commission is not seeking other operating information regarding
individual generators' actual costs, revenues, or profits.
    7. Day-ahead shift factors--The Commission is proposing that RTOs/
ISOs provide their data on shift factors calculated for use in the day-
ahead market. This would include generation shift factors, which are
factors to be applied to a generator's expected change in output to
determine the amount of flow contribution that that change in output
will impose on an identified transmission facility or flowgate, and
load shift factors, which are factors to be applied to a load's
expected change in demand to determine the amount of flow contribution
that that change in demand will impose on an identified transmission
facility or flowgate. This dataset would not be limited to binding
constraints, but should also include all shift factors calculated to
address non-binding constraints.
    8. FTR data--The Commission is proposing that RTOs/ISOs provide
their data on FTR transactions that may not be publicly posted in all
RTO/ISO markets. Specifically, the Commission is proposing that RTOs/
ISOs provide data detailing how all FTRs and allocated rights were
acquired, either through RTO/ISO allocation or auction procedures; data
detailing whether the acquired allocation positions were converted from
positions that collect auction revenue into positions that collect
congestion revenue; and data detailing secondary market transactions to
the extent that they are available to the RTO/ISO.
    9. Internal Bilateral Contracts--The Commission is proposing that
RTOs/ISOs provide their data on the settlement of internal bilateral
contracts for energy.

    10. Pricing data for interchange transactions--The Commission is
proposing that RTOs/ISOs provide their data on pricing information for
scheduled interchanges. Scheduled interchanges include any transaction
between two or more Balancing Authority Areas. To enhance the
Commission's market monitoring and surveillance efforts, the Commission
is proposing that eTag IDs be included, when applicable, in addition to
other interchange pricing details and transaction identification.
    37. The data that the Commission is proposing to receive
electronically in this NOPR are limited to physical and virtual offers
and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates,
shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and interchange
pricing. These datasets would include descriptive information such as
market participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other
information that the Commission considers necessary and appropriate to
understand and analyze the data described in this NOPR. Markets are not
static, however, and, as markets continue to evolve, the Commission may
initiate a new rulemaking process in the future to reassess the data
necessary for its market monitoring and surveillance efforts and for
its policy and decision-making needs.
    38. The Commission proposes that RTOs/ISOs be required to
electronically deliver the data discussed in this NOPR to the
Commission within seven days after each RTO/ISO creates the datasets in
a market run or otherwise. For example, day-ahead offers and bids,
market awards, resource outputs, day-ahead shift factors, internal
bilateral contracts, and day-ahead interchange pricing data would be
required to be electronically delivered within seven days after the
completion of each day-ahead market run. Real-time offers and bids and
real-time interchange pricing data would be required to be
electronically delivered within seven days after the completion of each
real-time market run. For data that are updated less frequently,
including capacity market results, estimated marginal costs, and FTR
data, each RTO/ISO would be expected to electronically deliver that
data within seven days after it is created or updated by the RTO/ISO.
For the initial delivery of data under this proposal, however, the
Commission proposes that each RTO/ISO would be required to
electronically deliver all such data forty-five days after the
effective date of any final rule in this proceeding. Finally, if the
RTO/ISO makes later corrections to the data (after they have been
delivered to the Commission), the RTO/ISO would be expected to
electronically deliver the corrected data to the Commission within
seven days after the correction has been made. The Commission invites
comments with respect to the timeframe in which the data described in
this NOPR should be electronically delivered to the Commission.
    39. The Commission proposes to locate the requirement to
electronically deliver this data on an ongoing basis within section
35.28(g) of our regulations. Further, the Commission proposes to direct
each RTO/ISO to submit a compliance filing amending its open access
transmission tariff to reflect this requirement within forty-five days
after the effective date of any final rule in this proceeding.

D. Data Formatting and Web-Based Delivery

    40. In order to facilitate the Commission's efforts described
above, the Commission is proposing to require each RTO and ISO to use
consistent formatting and delivery methods to electronically deliver
the data described in this NOPR to the Commission. Consistent
formatting and delivery methods will enable the Commission to develop
routine data procedures to link RTO/ISO and other market data, thus
enabling automated analytic techniques.
    41. In regard to data formatting, the Commission is proposing to
require that any data outlined in this NOPR be in an XML format that is
consistent for all RTOs/ISOs when electronically delivered to the
Commission. As stated above, the Commission is not proposing that each
RTO/ISO materially modify the data prior to electronic delivery to the
Commission.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See supra P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. In Order No. 714,\43\ the Commission adopted XML format for
entities to use when making tariff related filings, based upon industry
agreement.\44\ XML is also commonly used by RTOs/ISOs to deliver data
to market participants through Open Access Same-Time Information
Systems (OASIS) and other purposes. Data not formatted in XML may also
be extracted directly from a database into an XML-formatted file using
automated procedures. However, the Commission also recognizes that XML,
which was adopted by the industry as the most effective format to use
when electronically filing tariffs, may not be the preferred format to
use when electronically delivering RTO/ISO data. Accordingly, we seek
comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57515, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,276 (2008).
    \44\ Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,276 at P 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. In regard to the data delivery method, the Commission is
proposing that each RTO and ISO use a secure data delivery method to
provide data to the Commission due to the commercially-sensitive nature
of the market data described in this NOPR. Specifically, the Commission
is proposing that any RTO/ISO market data be electronically delivered
using the Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). Delivery by SFTP is
similar to delivery by File Transfer Protocol or ``FTP,'' a widely-used
file-sharing protocol; except that all communications transmitted using
SFTP are encrypted. Access to the server where the data is
electronically delivered will only be granted to each applicable RTO
and ISO and to the Commission.
    44. Accordingly, and as part of our consideration of the range of
possible formats and delivery methods that RTOs/ISOs may use to
electronically deliver data to the Commission, the Commission invites
comments with respect to efficient and secure ways to provide the
Commission with RTO/ISO data. The Commission also invites comment on
the time and resources that may be needed by RTOs/ISOs for the initial
implementation and ongoing compliance with the proposed requirements of
this rule. Finally, the Commission invites comment on whether a phased
implementation approach should be undertaken, and, if so, what a
potential phased approach should entail.

E. Non-Public Data

    45. Much of the information that the Commission expects to receive
in this proposal is, by its nature, commercially-sensitive.\45\
Disclosure of such information could result in competitive harm to
market participants and the market as a whole.\46\ Accordingly, the

Commission proposes that the data sought in this proceeding is to be
kept non-public and not be made publicly available,\47\ except as may
be directed by the Commission, or a court with appropriate
jurisdiction.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ In the past, the Commission has granted requests for
privileged or confidential treatment of similar non-public data.
See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 131 FERC ] 61,169, at P
15 (2010) (granting such treatment for data relating to specific
generator or other equipment details, transmission system
information, bidding strategies, generator reference levels,
generator costs, guarantee payments, and the associated relevant
time periods); see also So. Cal. Edison Co., 135 FERC ] 61,201, at P
20; Hydrogen Energy Cal. LLC, 135 FERC ] 61,068, at P 25 (2011);
N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 130 FERC ] 61,029, at P 3 (2010).
    \46\ Section 301(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 825(b), provides that
no member, officer, or employee of the Commission may divulge any
fact or information that may come to his knowledge during the course
of examination of books or other accounts, except as may be directed
by the Commission or by a court.
    \47\ We note that, notwithstanding that the Commission may have
data available to it, complainants still must bear the burden of
making a prima facie case; complainants must do more than make
unsubstantiated allegations. Interstate Power & Light Co. v. ITC
Midwest, LLC, 135 FERC ] 61,162, at P 18 (2011); see also UNITIL
Power Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H., 62 FERC P 61,055, at 61,287
(1993) (``The question we must answer at this stage of the
proceeding is whether UNITIL has presented sufficient evidence of
PSNH's costs so that we may assess whether a trial-type, evidentiary
hearing is warranted.''); Houlton Water Co. v. Me. Pub. Serv. Co.,
55 FERC P 61,037, at 61,110 (1991) (``Maine Public correctly states
that a customer seeking a section 206 investigation of existing
rates must provide some basis to question the reasonableness of the
overall rate level, taking into account changes in all cost
components and not just [the item being challenged].'').
    \48\ We note that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows
persons to file requests to obtain data from the Commission.
However, commercially-sensitive data, like that described in this
NOPR, is covered by exemption 4 of FOIA, which protects ``trade
secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a
person [that is] privileged or confidential.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)
(2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175,
121 Stat. 2524 (2007); accord 18 CFR 388.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. To the extent the data collected pursuant to this rulemaking
are used, for example, to support proposed market rule changes, the
analysis relied upon by the Commission will be publicly available
except that confidential market information and other protected or
confidential information will remain non-public. Also, the Commission
may direct its staff to publicly issue a staff report outside of a
rulemaking proceeding with similar protections for confidential or
otherwise protected information.

III. Information Collection Statement

    47. The collections of information contained in this proposed rule
have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's
need for this information, whether the information will have practical
utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected,
and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including
the use of automated information techniques. Respondents subject to the
filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to
respond to these collections of information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB Control number.
    48. The proposed rule does not require market participants other
than the RTOs/ISOs to report information to the Commission.
    49. The Commission's estimated reporting burden related to the
proposed rule in Docket RM11-17-000 follow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Implementing burden         Annual recurring operating         Average annual burden
                                                         --------------------------------             burden              (implementation cost  averaged
                                                                                --------------------------------          over 3 yrs.)
   Data collection, proposed FERC-921        Number of                                                                   -------------------------------
                                            respondents     Burden hrs.      Cost per       Burden hrs.      Cost per       Burden hrs.
                                                          per respondent    respondent    per respondent    respondent        for all      Cost for all
                                                                                respondents     respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance filing.......................               6               7          $1,750  ..............  ..............              14          $3,500
Web-Based Delivery......................               6           1,040         100,864              40          $3,879           2,320         225,003
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grand Total, Average Annual                        6  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           2,334         228,503
     Estimates..........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. The Commission recognizes that there will be an initial
implementation burden associated with providing the Commission with
RTO/ISO data. This includes submitting a compliance filing to the
Commission, which the Commission estimates as a burden of 7 hours per
RTO/ISO, and implementing a process to automatically upload data to an
SFTP site for Commission use (including development, testing and
production). The Commission estimates a burden of 1040 hours per RTO/
ISO for the development, testing and production of an automated process
to provide the Commission with the data described in this NOPR. In this
regard, though, RTO/ISO markets have already developed capabilities
necessary to handle RTO/ISO data in an automated manner. For instance,
through their Open Access Same-time Information Systems (OASIS), RTOs/
ISOs already make certain market data publically available in XML
format using automated procedures. Likewise, some RTOs/ISOs have
developed procedures similar to those proposed in this NOPR to deliver
data to their MMUs.
    51. For the recurring effort involved in electronically delivering
RTO/ISO data to the Commission, the Commission anticipates that the
additional burden associated with this rule will be minimal. Any
recurring burden would be associated with addressing updates to RTO/ISO
data as the data that they process changes and due to occasional errors
in the data handling or data upload process.

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission has estimated the cost
of compliance per RTO/ISO to be $102,614 in the initial year of
implementation and $3,879 in subsequent years. The Commission expects
that the compliance filing will be completed by RTO/ISO legal staff and
has estimated an hourly rate at $250/hour. The Commission estimates
that a variety of staff, including legal, database administrators and
IT and information security specialists, will be required to
electronically deliver to the Commission the RTO/ISO data described in
this NOPR. The Commission estimated the average hourly cost for this
task to be $96.98/hour (including legal staff at $250/hour, information
systems manager at $105.35/hour, database administrator at $55.61/hour,
and information security analyst at $57.67/hour).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Hourly average wage is an average and was calculated using
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics
data for May 2010 (at http://www.bls.gov/oes/) for the database
administrator and information security analysts. The average hourly
figure for legal staff and information systems manager is a
composite from BLS and other resources. The following weightings
were applied to estimate the average hourly cost: Legal staff (\1/
6\), information systems manager (\1/6\), database administrator
(\1/3\), and information security analyst (\1/3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Proposed FERC-921.\50\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ OATT compliance filings (like the one-time compliance
filing here) are normally included under FERC-516 (OMB Control No.
1902-0096). However, the reporting requirements (including the
compliance filing) contained in this proposed rule in Docket No.
RM11-17 will be covered by a proposed FERC-921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: Proposed collection.
    OMB Control No.: To be determined.
    Respondents for this Rulemaking: RTOs and ISOs.
    Frequency of Information: Initial implementation, compliance
filing, and automated daily updates.
    52. Necessity of Information: As wholesale electricity markets
continue to develop and evolve, new opportunities arise for anti-
competitive or manipulative behavior. The Commission's market
monitoring and surveillance capabilities and associated data
requirements must keep pace with market developments and evolve along
with the markets. The data discussed in this NOPR will allow the
Commission to more effectively identify and address such behavior; to
identify ineffective market rules; to better inform Commission policies
and regulations; and thus to help ensure just and reasonable rates.
    53. Internal Review: The Commission has made a preliminary
determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to keep pace
with ever-changing possibilities for anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior and to better inform Commission policies and regulations, and
thus to ensure that rates are just and reasonable. The Commission has
assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimate associated with the
information requirements.
    54. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    55. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in
this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the
Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent
by e-mail to OMB at the following e-mail address: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference FERC-921 and the docket number
of this proposed rulemaking (Docket No. RM11-17-000) in your
submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    56. 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.\51\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\52\ The actions proposed here fall within a categorical
exclusion in the Commission's regulations, i.e., they involve
information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\53\ Therefore,
environmental analysis is unnecessary and has not been performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \52\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \53\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    57. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \54\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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 is
responsible for the definition of a small business.\55\ The SBA has
established a size standard for utilities, stating that a firm is small
if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the
transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did
not exceed four million megawatt hours.\56\ RTOs and ISOs are not small
entities, and they are the only entities impacted directly by this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \55\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \56\ 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22, Utilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. CAISO is a nonprofit organization with over 54,000 megawatts of
capacity and over 25,000 circuit miles of transmission lines.
    59. NYISO is a nonprofit organization that oversees wholesale
electricity markets serving 19.2 million customers. NYISO manages a
nearly 11,000-mile network of high-voltage transmission lines.
    60. PJM is comprised of more than 700 members including power
generators, transmission owners, electricity distributers, power
marketers, and large industrial customers and serves 13 states and the
District of Columbia.
    61. SPP is comprised of 63 members serving 6.2 million households
in nine states and has 48,930 miles of transmission lines.
    62. Midwest ISO is a nonprofit organization with over 145,000
megawatts of installed generation. Midwest ISO has over 57,600 miles of
transmission lines and serves 13 states and one Canadian province.
    63. ISO-NE is a regional transmission organization serving six
states in New England. The system is comprised of more than 8,000 miles
of high-voltage transmission lines and over 300 generators.
    64. The Commission believes this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and therefore no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

VI. Comment Procedures

    65. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this

notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative
proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due
December 27, 2011. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM11-17-000, and
must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address.
    66. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    67. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original copy of their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    68. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    69. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    70. 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 both 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.
    71. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Spitzer is not
participating.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to
revise Chapter I, Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read
as follows:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

    1. The authority 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.

    2. In Sec.  35.28, paragraphs (g)(4) through (g)(6) are
redesignated as paragraphs (g)(5) through (g)(7) and a new paragraph
(g)(4) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  35.28.  Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *
    (g) Tariffs and operations of Commission-approved independent
system operators and regional transmission organizations.
* * * * *
    (4) Electronic delivery of data. Each Commission-approved regional
transmission organization and independent system operator must
electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis and in a
form and manner acceptable to the Commission, data related to the
markets that the regional transmission organization or independent
system operator administers.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-27626 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P