[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49555-49556]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19693]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30647; File No. 811-07528]

Special Opportunities Fund, Inc.; Notice of Application

August 8, 2013.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for a declaratory order under Section
554(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (``APA'') concerning
a proxy voting procedure under Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant requests an order declaring that its
proxy voting procedure does not cause the applicant to be in violation
of Section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

APPLICANT: Special Opportunities Fund, Inc. (``SPE'' or ``Fund'').

FILING DATES: The application was filed on December 13, 2011 and
amended on November 5, 2012.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: Interested persons may request a
hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicant
with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 3, 2013,
and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the
form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary. Absent a request for a hearing that is granted
by the Commission, the Commission intends to issue an order under
Section 554(e) of the APA declaring that applicant's proxy voting
procedure does not satisfy Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act.

ADDRESSES: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicant, 615
East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Glazer, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6825, Division of Investment Management, Office of Chief Counsel.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/ic/2012/special-opportunities-fund-application.pdf or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. SPE is organized as a Maryland corporation and is registered
under the Act as a closed-end management investment company. Brooklyn
Capital Management, LLC (``Adviser''), a Delaware limited liability
company, is an investment adviser registered under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and currently serves as investment adviser to SPE.
SPE seeks to rely on Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act to invest its
assets in securities of other investment companies registered under the
Act (``underlying funds'') that are closed-end investment companies, in
excess of the limits in Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act.
    2. On December 7, 2011, SPE's shareholders approved a proposal to
``instruct the Adviser to vote proxies received by the Fund from any
[underlying fund] on any proposal (including the election of directors)
in a manner which the Adviser reasonably determines is likely to
favorably impact the discount of such [underlying fund's] market price
as compared to its net asset value'' (``Voting Procedure''). SPE
requests a declaratory order pursuant to Section 554(e) of the APA
stating that the Voting Procedure ``does not cause it to be in
violation of Section 12(d)(1) of the Act.''

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that
it shall be unlawful for any registered investment company (``acquiring
fund'') to purchase or otherwise acquire any security issued by an
underlying fund if immediately after such purchase or acquisition: (i)
the acquiring company owns more than 3% of the underlying fund's total
outstanding voting stock; (ii) securities issued by the underlying fund
have an aggregate value in excess of 5% of the value of the acquiring
fund's total assets (``5% limit''); or if such securities, together
with the securities of other investment companies, have an aggregate
value in excess of 10% of the value of the acquiring fund's total
assets (``10% limit'').
    2. Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act provides a conditional exemption
from the 5% and 10% limits in Section 12(d)(1)(A). Section 12(d)(1)(F)
permits an acquiring fund to purchase or otherwise acquire shares of an
underlying fund if, immediately after the purchase or acquisition, the
acquiring fund and all of its affiliated persons would not own more
than 3% of the underlying fund's total outstanding stock, and if
certain sales load restrictions are met. Section 12(d)(1)(F) further
provides that the underlying fund is not obligated to redeem, during
any period of less than 30 days, securities held by the acquiring fund
in an amount exceeding 1% of the underlying fund's outstanding
securities. Finally, Section 12(d)(1)(F) provides that the acquiring
fund ``shall exercise voting rights by proxy or otherwise with respect
to any security purchased or acquired pursuant to [Section 12(d)(1)(F)]
in the manner prescribed by [Section 12(d)(1)(E)].'' Section
12(d)(1)(E)(iii), in turn, provides, in relevant part, that ``the
purchase or acquisition is made pursuant to an arrangement with the
issuer of, or principal underwriter for, the issuer of the security
whereby [the acquiring fund] is obligated either to seek instructions
from its security holders with regard to the voting of all proxies with
respect to such security and to vote such proxies only in accordance
with such instructions, or to vote the shares held by it in the same
proportion as the vote of all other holders of such security.'' The
first alternative is referred to as ``Pass-Through Voting Condition.''
The second alternative is referred to as ``Mirror Voting.''
    3. SPE asserts that its Voting Procedure satisfies the Pass-Through
Voting Condition. SPE states that it has been ``unable to find anything
in the legislative history of Section 12(d)(1) that provides any clue
as to the reason for the [Pass-Through Voting Condition].'' SPE further
asserts that ``there are good reasons for interpreting the [Pass-
Through Voting Condition] to allow an acquiring fund to seek standing
instructions to vote on proposals regarding acquired funds.'' In this
regard, SPE asserts that it is not cost effective for an acquiring fund
to obtain voting instructions for a particular

underlying fund after it receives a proxy. SPE also states that ``there
is almost never sufficient time for an acquiring fund to seek and
actually obtain instructions from its own shareholders as to how to
vote a specific proxy solicited by a particular acquired fund.'' SPE
further states that ``SPE has no such relationship with any fund and it
would be futile for SPE to try to persuade an unrelated acquired fund
to transmit its proxy materials to SPE's stockholders.''
    4. SPE requests an order under section 554(e) of the APA declaring
that the Voting Procedure ``does not cause it to be in violation of
Section 12(d)(1) of the Act.'' Section 554(e) of the APA provides that
``[t]he agency, with like effect as in the case of other orders, and in
its sound discretion, may issue a declaratory order to terminate a
controversy or remove uncertainty.'' SPE states that, if the Commission
issues the requested declaratory order, SPE intends to submit the
Voting Procedure for shareholder approval on an annual basis ``to
insure that its standing proxy voting instructions do not become
stale.''

The Commission's Preliminary Views

    1. Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the 1940 Act provides a conditional
exemption from the restrictions in Section 12(d)(1)(A) on an acquiring
fund purchasing or otherwise acquiring a security issued by an
underlying fund. The legislative history of Section 12(d)(1)(A)
suggests that these restrictions were designed, in part, to address the
concern that an acquiring fund could be used by an investment adviser,
among others, as a vehicle to control or unduly influence, through
voting, threat of redemption or otherwise, an underlying fund for its
own benefit and to the detriment of the shareholders of both funds.\1\
The conditions contained in the exemption provided by Section
12(d)(1)(F), and in particular the condition requiring voting in
accordance with Section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii), attempts to minimize the
influence that an acquiring fund may exercise over an underlying fund
through voting.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investment
Trusts and Investment Companies, H.R. Doc No. 279, 76th Cong., 1st
Sess., pt. 3, at 2721-95 (1939).
    \2\ See Fund of Funds Investments, Investment Company Act
Release No. 27399 (June 20, 2006) at n.11 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Shortly after Section 12(d)(1)(F) was enacted in 1970, the
Commission issued a release providing guidance on the various
provisions enacted by the new legislation, including specifically the
Pass-Through Voting Condition.\3\ The 1971 Release stated that the
Pass-Through Voting Condition in Section 12(d)(1)(F) ``in effect,
requires the fund holding company to make an arrangement with the
issuer or principal underwriter of the issuer whereby sufficient proxy
solicitation or other material may be transmitted to the fund holding
company's security holders so that their instructions may be
obtained.'' \4\ This approach addresses the concern underlying the
restrictions in Section 12(d)(1)(A)--that the fund of funds' investment
adviser or another affiliate not exercise undue influence over the
management or policies of an underlying fund--by placing the voting of
the underlying fund's proxies in the hands of the fund of funds'
shareholders (rather than its investment adviser). Consistent with the
Commission's analysis in the 1971 Release, the Commission interprets
Section 12(d)(1)(F), through the incorporation of the requirement in
Section 12(d)(1)(E)(iii), to require SPE, if it chooses the Pass-
Through Voting Condition, to have an arrangement with each underlying
fund or its principal underwriter whereby SPE will pass through the
proxies to SPE's shareholders and vote according to their instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes in the Investment Company Act of 1940 Made by the
Investment Company Amendments Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-547) Relating
to the Repeal and Modification of Exemptions for Certain Companies;
The Pyramiding of Investment Companies and the Regulation of Fund
Holding Companies; and Rescission of Rule 11b-1 under the Investment
Company Act, Investment Company Act Release No. 6440 (Apr. 6, 1971)
(``1971 Release'').
    \4\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In the Commission's preliminary view, SPE's Voting Procedure
does not appear to be consistent with the purposes and policies behind
Section 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act, or with the guidance that the
Commission articulated in the 1971 Release. The Voting Procedure gives
the Adviser broad discretion in voting the underlying funds' proxies
and thus presents the potential for the Adviser to exercise undue
influence over the management and policies of the underlying funds. As
to SPE's assertion that soliciting proxies as described in the 1971
Release is ``prohibitively expensive and logistically impractical,'' we
note that Section 12(d)(1)(E) requires there to be ``an arrangement''
between the acquiring fund and an underlying fund concerning the voting
of proxies, which suggests that at least the logistics of the Pass-
Through Voting Condition could be addressed as part of ``the
arrangement.'' We also note that funds of funds similar to SPE existed
at the time the 1971 Release was issued and the Pass-Through Voting
Condition was enacted as an alternative to Mirror Voting, yet Congress
nevertheless determined the statutory conditions to be appropriate.\5\
To the extent that SPE finds making ``an arrangement'' with an
underlying fund under the Pass-Through Voting Condition ``futile,'' SPE
has the option of using Mirror Voting. Therefore, absent a request for
a hearing that is granted by the Commission, the Commission intends to
respond to SPE's application by issuing an order under Section 554(e)
of the APA declaring that the Voting Procedure does not satisfy Section
12(d)(1)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mutual Fund Legislation of 1967: Hearings on S. 1659
Before the Senate Comm. on Banking and Currency, 90th Cong., 1st
Sess. 882-891 (1967) (statement of Milton Mound, President, First
Multifund of America, Inc.).

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19693 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 48854]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1183-000.
    Applicants: Eni Petroleum US LLC, et. al.
    Description: Joint Petition of Eni Petroleum US LLC, et. al. for
Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release Regulations and Policies and
Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 8/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150806-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1184-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Revisions Related to Lease
Modification to be effective 9/1/2014
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1185-000.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to
Amend LER 5680's Attachment A_8-7-15 to be effective 8/7/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1186-000.
    Applicants: Paiute Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming TSA-F30A to be
effective 8/7/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-301-001.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing Interruptible Balancing Service--
Compliance Filing to be effective 9/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150806-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/18/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 11, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20082 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71511-71517]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 154, 260, and 284

[Docket No. RM21-18-000; Order No. 884]

Revised Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural
Gas Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues this final
rule to require natural gas pipelines to submit all supporting
statements, schedules and workpapers in native format (e.g., Microsoft
Excel) with all links and formulas included when filing a Natural Gas
Act section 4 rate case.

DATES: This rule is effective December 23, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tehseen Rana (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
Caitlin Tweed (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) revises the filing and reporting requirements for natural
gas pipelines filing a Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 4 rate case.\1\ As
discussed below, we adopt the Commission's proposal pursuant to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) issued on May 19, 2022,\2\ to
establish a rule to require natural gas pipelines to submit all
supporting statements, schedules and workpapers in native format (e.g.,
Microsoft Excel) with all links and formulas included when filing an
NGA section 4 rate case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717c.
    \2\ Revised Filing & Reporting Requirements for Interstate Nat.
Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs, 87 FR 31783 (May 25, 2022), 179
FERC ] 61,114) (2022) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. When a natural gas pipeline files under NGA section 4 to change
its rates, the Commission requires the pipeline to provide detailed
support for all the components of its cost of service.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 154.312 and 154.313 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Commission regulations require that natural gas pipelines filing
general NGA section 4 rate cases provide certain statements (Statements
A through P) and associated schedules.\4\ In 1995, the Commission
issued its Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural Gas
Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs (Order No. 582), stating that
Statements I, J and a portion of H (containing state tax formulations)
must be received in spreadsheet format with formulas included, as the
data provided in these statements and schedules are essential to
understanding a natural gas pipeline's position with regard to cost
allocation and rate design.\5\ The Commission explained that although
these spreadsheets could be obtained through discovery, that process is
burdensome and inhibits better-

informed comments.\6\ Subsequently, the FERC Implementation Guide for
Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300 and 341 Tariff Filings
(FERC Implementation Guide) stated that the ``submission of
spreadsheets in native file format is preferred for Statements A
through M, including related schedules. Statements O and P may use any
electronic format that renders text, graphics, spreadsheets or data
bases that the Commission accepts (the list of FERC Acceptable File
Formats is available on http://www.ferc.gov).'' \7\ Furthermore, for
Statements I, J and a portion of H, the FERC Implementation Guide
stated that if spreadsheets in native format are not available, the
natural gas pipeline may submit those statements using any of the
aforementioned acceptable electronic formats that the Commission
accepts.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 154.312.
    \5\ Filing & Reporting Requirements for Interstate Nat. Gas Co.
Rate Schedules & Tariffs, Order No. 582, 60 FR 52,960, 52,994 (Oct.
11, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,025 (1995) (cross-referenced at
72 FERC ] 61,300), order on clarification, 76 FERC ] 61,077 (1996).
    \6\ In Order No. 703, the Commission confirmed the requirement
that pipelines submit spreadsheets in native format for Statements
I, J and a portion of H, including intact formulas. Filing Via the
Internet, Order No. 703, 72 FR 65659 (Nov. 23, 2007), 121 FERC ]
61,171, at P 26 (2007).
    \7\ FERC Implementation Guide for Electronic Filing of Parts 35,
154, 284, 300 & 341 Tariff Filings (2016).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require natural gas
pipelines to submit all statements, schedules and workpapers in native
format with formulas and links intact \9\ when filing a general NGA
section 4 rate case. As the Commission explained in the NOPR, requiring
all statements, schedules and workpapers to be filed in native format
will reconcile any ambiguity in the current requirements.\10\ Moreover,
the Commission explained that this requirement would address the
information gap that currently exists because, when a pipeline submits
a section 4 rate case filing the Commission often cannot verify whether
there were underlying links used to develop a spreadsheet or whether a
pipeline severed those links before filing its rate case.\11\
Furthermore, the Commission stated that requiring spreadsheets with
links and formulas intact will enable rate case participants to
manipulate the cost-of-service components (including billing
determinants) to evaluate different rate outcomes without the need to
create their own rate models, which will expedite settlement
negotiations and allow all rate case participants to evaluate the
filing on an equal footing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Formulas and links intact'' include formulas and links
within individual spreadsheets and between spreadsheets. For
example, the Commission explained that the proposal would require
that formulas and links within Schedule I-2 be intact within
Schedule I-2, and intact for any progressive calculations that flow
data from Schedule I-2.
    \10\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,114 at P 6.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission also stated that submitting all statements,
schedules and workpapers in native format will provide for a timely and
comprehensive analysis of a rate case filing.\13\ All interested rate
case participants will be able to evaluate the statements and schedules
once they are filed, rather than needing to wait to obtain the
information through discovery or to create their own rate models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Finally, the Commission stated that the current policy on this
issue is outdated because information technology has significantly
improved since the issuance of Order No. 582 in 1995, and pipelines now
routinely develop rate cases using Microsoft Excel and submit them
electronically.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. P 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The NOPR was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2022
\15\ and established a comment date of June 24, 2022. The Commission
received eight comments and two reply comments from a variety of
stakeholders.\16\ XES, National Grid and Exelon, generally support the
Commission's proposal, while Energy Transfer, BHE GT&S, INGAA, Joint
Commenters and Public Citizen, also generally support the proposal and
request further clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Revised Filing & Reporting Requirements for Interstate Nat.
Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs, 87 FR 31783 (May 25, 2022), 179
FERC ] 61,114 (2022).
    \16\ Comments were submitted by Xcel Energy Services Inc. on
behalf of the Xcel Energy Operating Companies (XES); the Brooklyn
Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY, KeySpan Gas East
Corporation d/b/a National Grid, Boston Gas Company d/b/a National
Grid, and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid
(collectively, National Grid); Exelon Corporation, on behalf of its
local gas distribution company subsidiaries Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and PECO Energy
Company (Exelon); Energy Transfer LP (Energy Transfer); BHE GT&S,
LLC and its gas transmission and storage entities, which include
Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc., Cove Point LNG, LP, and
Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC (BHE GT&S); the Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America (INGAA); the American Gas Association,
American Public Gas Association, American Forest & Paper
Association, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, Process Gas
Consumers Group, and Natural Gas Supply Association (collectively,
Joint Commenters); and Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    8. We adopt the proposal set forth in the NOPR to require natural
gas pipelines to submit all supporting statements, schedules and
workpapers in native format with all links and formulas included when
filing an NGA section 4 rate case. We acknowledge the requests from
certain commenters that the Commission undertake various additional
initiatives, but we find that those requested initiatives go beyond the
scope of this rulemaking, as explained below.

A. The Final Rule Imposes a Reasonable Burden on Pipelines

1. Comments
    9. Energy Transfer argues that ``the proposed rule takes the
additional, unjust and unreasonable step of requiring a pipeline to
create links and formulas in successive documents even if the pipeline
did not need or use such links and formulas when it prepared and filed
its rate case.'' \17\ Energy Transfer states that ``requiring a
pipeline to specially create and file links or formulas it did not need
or use to prepare and file its rate case is arbitrary and capricious
and does not constitute reasoned decision-making because it would
unreasonably shift litigation costs and burdens to interstate natural
gas pipelines.'' \18\ Energy Transfer further states that ``such costs
should be borne by the limited number of participants involved in rate
case litigation that seek to analyze rates in specific detail to
litigate their individual rate issues.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Energy Transfer Comments at 2.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Joint Commenters disagree with Energy Transfer, arguing that
the burden on pipelines would be limited because Order No. 582 already
requires pipelines to provide data for certain statements with formulas
included, and subsequent orders reiterate these requirements.\20\
Second, Joint Commenters argue that pipelines bear the burden of
supporting a rate filing. Moreover, Joint Commenters point out that to
the extent that pipelines incur additional costs related to complying
with any new rule that the Commission issues, pipelines can seek to
recover the costs in a rate proceeding, and therefore, the costs are
not being shifted impermissibly to the pipelines.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 5 (citing Order No. 582,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,025, at 31,435).
    \21\ Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. BHE GT&S requests that the Commission clarify that a natural
gas pipeline is not required to create links across statements and
schedules where they did not already exist.\22\ BHE GT&S argues that it
is not reasonable to require

rate case participants to create links where none exist in the first
instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ BHE GT&S Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Commission Determination
    12. We disagree with Energy Transfer's argument that the NOPR
proposal which we adopt in this final rule is unjust and unreasonable.
First, we find that this final rule does not unreasonably shift
litigation costs from intervenors to the pipeline. The pipeline has the
burden under NGA section 4 to support its proposed rates in its case in
chief.\23\ This final rule merely requires pipelines to provide intact
links and formulas in the workpapers and schedules that must be
included in the case in chief.\24\ This final rule does not require
pipelines to fund the litigation costs of other participants. Moreover,
while pipelines may incur increased costs to comply with this final
rule, we find that any additional burden would be limited, and
pipelines are allowed to recover those costs through their rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 717c(e).
    \24\ 18 CFR 154.312 to 154.314 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Finally, we deny BHE GT&S's request for clarification that a
natural gas pipeline is not required to create links across statements
and schedules where they did not already exist. Rather, this final rule
does require natural gas pipelines to create links and formulas to show
the pipeline's progressive calculations in the supporting statements,
schedules and workpapers.
2. The Final Rule Properly Addresses the Information Gap Occurring When
Formulas and Links Are Not Provided
a. Comments
    14. Energy Transfer, citing the NOPR, notes that the Commission
``seek[s] to address this information gap and require natural gas
pipelines to file statements and schedules linking progressive
calculations regardless of how the statements and schedules were
created.'' \25\ Energy Transfer contends that the ``Commission's
proposal is based on a false premise because no so-called `information
gap' exists, and all the information and data are included in the
pipeline's rate case filing.'' \26\ Energy Transfer further argues that
a pipeline may create an Excel file without certain links or formulas
because such links or formulas are not necessary or helpful to prepare
and file the rate case.\27\ Energy Transfer contends that a search of
the Commission's orders did not reveal any published orders where the
Commission rejected a pipeline's NGA section 4 rate filing due to the
pipeline severing underlying links prior to filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NOPR, 179 FERC ] 61,114 at P 6 (emphasis added).
    \26\ Energy Transfer Comments at 4.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id. at n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    15. Based on the record developed in this proceeding, we disagree
with Energy Transfer's contention that an information gap does not
exist. A rate model without formulas and links intact is much less
useful to rate case participants who are trying to evaluate a natural
gas pipeline's rate design, cost allocations, or rate calculations.
When a pipeline files a rate model without formulas and links, rate
case participants must recreate the natural gas pipeline's model, which
is inefficient and duplicative. Requiring spreadsheets and workpapers
to be filed with links and formulas included will allow rate case
participants to manipulate the cost-of-service components and billing
determinants without creating their own rate models. This will expedite
settlement negotiations and will allow all rate case participants to
evaluate the filing on an equal footing with the pipeline.
    16. Moreover, under this final rule, rate case participants can
begin evaluating a natural gas pipeline's rate design, cost
allocations, and rate calculations immediately in the comment period
after a pipeline files a section 4 rate case and thus file better-
informed comments. Furthermore, requiring pipelines to file all
statements and schedules with formulas and links intact will enable all
rate case participants to evaluate the filing and any settlement offers
from the same baseline, as opposed to all rate case participants
creating their own rate models. Thus, the final rule will streamline
the rate case process, including settlement discussions, and avoid rate
case participants exchanging multiple rounds of discovery and testimony
just to understand the rate model's underlying calculations, which are
fundamental to the rate case.
    17. Energy Transfer argues that there is no evidence that natural
gas pipelines are severing existing links.\29\ We find this point
irrelevant. The development of a rate model, with formulas and links
intact, is imperative to the proper functioning of the model. If there
are severed links within the rate model then a change in input in one
statement will not update to its corresponding change on another
statement. Without this flow through of information, rate case
participants can not properly ascertain the intended rate design, cost
allocations, and rate calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Whether or not pipelines are severing links or the links never
existed, there is an information gap between the pipeline and rate case
participants involved in a rate case if the rate model fails to include
links and formulas essential to understanding the rate calculations.
This final rule seeks to close that gap.
3. The Final Rule Provides Adequate Notice of Changes in Policy
a. Comments
    19. Energy Transfer states the Commission's proposal fails to
include proposed regulations describing what must be provided in a rate
case filing. Therefore, pipelines would not have any notice in the
regulations as to what is being required by the rulemaking unless it
separately was aware of this proceeding.\30\ Additionally, Energy
Transfer claims a ``lack of proper notice and lack of specific language
in the regulations does not comply with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. at 10.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    20. We are not persuaded by Energy Transfer's argument that the
NOPR failed to provide adequate notice to pipelines of what is being
required by this rulemaking. Although the NOPR did not include proposed
regulations, the NOPR fully described the proposed filing requirements.
Furthermore, the Commission's regulations do not discuss filing
formats, and we see no need in this proceeding to add that level of
granularity to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act.\32\ While the NGA section 4 requirements in the regulations remain
the same, technology and procedures evolve. We continue to believe it
is appropriate for natural gas pipelines to rely on the FERC
Implementation Guide for detailed guidance on filing requirements that
goes beyond the regulations.\33\ Therefore, we find Energy Transfer's
notice arguments unavailing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., Pub. Util. Transmission Rate Changes to Address
Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes, Order No. 864, 84 FR 65,281 (Nov.
27, 2019), 169 FERC ] 61,139 (2019), order on reh'g and
clarification, 171 FERC ] 61,033 (2020). While not revising any
regulatory text, the Commission is using the process provided for
rulemaking proceedings, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(4)-(5).
    \33\ See also Tex. E. Transmission, LP, 165 FERC ] 61,287, at P
31 (2018); E. Tenn. Nat. Gas, LLC, 172 FERC ] 61,114, at PP 33-34
(2020).

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

4. Formulas and Links in Statements and Schedules Filed Publicly Are
Presumed To Be Public
a. Comments
    21. Joint Commenters request that the final rule address the
presumption that native format files, with formulas intact, of publicly
filed material should be publicly available. Joint Commenters note that
ratepayers have recently experienced a situation where a pipeline
claimed that links in its Excel spreadsheets for statements and related
schedules should receive confidential treatment, even though the
statements and schedules themselves (without links) had been filed
publicly.\34\ Joint Commenters argue that such treatment is
unnecessary, and the pipeline's claim of confidentiality created an
additional burden for shippers that hindered the administrative
process. Therefore, Joint Commenters ask that the final rule clarify
that native format files, with links and formulas intact, of publicly
filed material are presumed to be publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Joint Commenters Comments at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. INGAA opposes Joint Commenters' request that the final rule
implement a blanket denial of any request under Sec.  388.112 for
privileged treatment of any portion of the rate model spreadsheets that
the Commission is requiring natural gas pipelines to file as part of
the proposed rule.\35\ According to INGAA, the statements, schedules
and workpapers with formulas and links intact are commercial
information that certain pipelines treat as private and are provided by
those pipelines to the Commission with the expectation that the
information will not be generally available on the public docket for
use outside of the rate case.\36\ INGAA states that the Commission
acknowledged in Order No. 703 that a pipeline is entitled to submit
spreadsheets as privileged and only provide the flat files or a PDF as
the public version of the protected information.\37\ INGAA further
states that privileged treatment of the rate model statements,
schedules and workpapers with formula and links intact is also
consistent with the treatment of information as confidential under the
Chief Administrative Law Judge's Model Protective Order, and therefore
there are already procedures in place to address Joint Commenters'
concerns about access to privileged information.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ INGAA Reply Comments at 2.
    \36\ Id. at 4 (citing Seife v. Food & Drug Admin., 492 F. Supp.
3d 269, 276-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (limited disclosures subject to
nondisclosure agreements and ``not made to the general public, do
not preclude Exemption 4 protection'')).
    \37\ Id. at 4-5 (citing Order No. 703, 121 FERC ] 61,171 at P
26).
    \38\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. INGAA argues that there are many reasons to seek protection of
the rate model spreadsheets based on concerns that disclosure may
result in competitive disadvantage or other business injury.
Specifically, INGAA states that it is concerned that third parties with
no legitimate interest in the ratemaking process may misuse, modify, or
misrepresent the cost allocation or rate design results contained
within the spreadsheets in ways that would be difficult or impossible
to clarify. INGAA argues that such misuse could be the basis for
unsupported claims that the pipeline is earning more than a reasonable
return or unfairly allocating costs, which could affect the pipeline's
value to potential investors, lenders, shippers, or other market
participants. INGAA states that any administrative convenience is
outweighed by the risk of competitive harm or other business injury
resulting from publicly filing proprietary information, and that the
Commission and the participants in a rate case already have the
unobstructed right to this information.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    24. We decline to adopt Joint Commenters' requested clarification.
A filer may request confidential treatment, and the Commission will
evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis. In such cases, the data
sets and spreadsheets should be submitted in both privileged,
unredacted form and in public, redacted form, pursuant to 18 CFR
388.112.\40\ As Joint Commenters note, however, the information in a
rate model is generally already public information and pipelines
seeking confidential treatment will have the burden of proof that
confidential treatment is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Order No. 582, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,025, at 31,435,
Order No. 703, 121 FERC ] 61,171 at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Formulas and Links Must Be Maintained Only Between Schedules and
Workpapers Filed in the Same Rate Case
a. Comments
    25. INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that ``formulas and
links intact'' means formulas and links within and between statements,
schedules and workpapers filed in the same rate case, not formulas
contained in or links to spreadsheets not required as part of the
initial filing.\41\ INGAA states that the Commission recognized this
distinction in Order No. 582 between formulas in workpapers and
statements submitted in the rate case and formulas located in or links
to separate spreadsheets not submitted as part of the pipeline's
filing, and asserts that the Commission rejected a suggestion that
pipelines must produce the ``underlying spreadsheets, models, and
databases relied upon to prepare the filing in an electronic format''
upon request.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ INGAA Comments at 2 (citing Order No. 582, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,025, at 31,435).
    \42\ Id. at 3 (citing Order No. 582, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,025 at 31,435). INGAA also states that the Commission stated that
this information ``may be discoverable at hearing if found necessary
in a particular case.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In addition, INGAA states that the Commission should continue
to permit pipelines to file Statements O and P in any manner consistent
with the current FERC Implementation Guide, specifically in ``any
electronic format that renders text, graphics, spreadsheets or data
bases that the Commission accepts.'' \43\ INGAA argues that these
statements do not contain links within the statement or to other
statements, and the submission of Statements O and P in native format
will not enable participants in the rate proceeding to more easily
manipulate information or to analyze the statements in a more timely or
comprehensive manner.\44\ Furthermore, INGAA requests that the
Commission clarify that the proposed rule does not expand the
information that pipelines must submit when initiating an NGA section 4
rate case, but modifies the format of the statements, schedules, and
workpapers currently required by the Commission's regulations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id. at 4 (citing FERC Implementation Guide for Elec. Filing
of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300 & 341 Tariff Filings, Order No. 703, 72
FR 65659 (Nov. 23, 2007), 121 FERC ] 61,171 at P 24 (``Submission of
text documents will be permissible in native or in searchable
format.'')).
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    27. We affirm that the final rule's requirement that rate models be
filed with ``formulas and links intact'' applies to statements,
schedules, and workpapers filed in the same rate case and not to
formulas contained in or links to spreadsheets not required as part of
the initial filing. However, we clarify that to the extent a natural
gas pipeline creates a workpaper to create a statement or schedule
required by Sec.  154.312 of the Commission's regulations (e.g., an
allocation workpaper that informs the I Schedules), the pipeline must
file that workpaper with formulas and links intact, as that workpaper
is essential to

understanding the rate model's inputs and calculations. This includes
links within the workpaper, and between the workpaper and the statement
or schedule that relies on that workpaper.
    28. We grant the request to clarify that Statements O and P do not
contain links within the statement or to other statements or schedules,
and therefore may continue to be filed in any manner consistent with
the FERC Implementation Guide for these statements. We also affirm that
this final rule does not expand the information that pipelines must
submit when initiating an NGA section 4 general rate case but clarifies
the format requirements with which such information must comply.
6. Application of the Final Rule to Other Rate Case Participants and
Scenarios Is Beyond the Scope of This Proceeding
a. Comments
    29. BHE GT&S requests that the Commission clarify that the
requirement for natural gas pipelines to provide supporting statements,
schedules and workpapers in native format should ``also apply equally
to all parties, including Commission staff and intervenors, when
submitting rate case materials.'' \46\ Specifically, BHE GT&S states
that the Commission should clarify that the changes proposed in the
NOPR should apply equally to parties submitting a complaint requesting
the initiation of a proceeding under NGA section 5, as well as to
information submitted by Commission staff or other stakeholders in
rebuttal to an NGA section 4 rate case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ BHE GT&S Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    30. The NOPR did not propose to require rate case participants to
provide supporting statements, schedules and workpapers in native
format during NGA section 5 proceedings as suggested by BHE GT&S. We
decline to apply the final rule to NGA section 5 complaint cases, as
they are outside the scope of this proceeding. The final rule applies
solely to natural gas pipelines filing general NGA section 4 rate
cases. Moreover, we decline to require all rate case participants to a
general NGA section 4 rate case to comply with the final rule. In an
NGA section 4 rate case, the pipeline has the burden of proof to
justify its change in rates. If a rate case is fully litigated at
hearing, natural gas pipelines may seek rate models with links and
formulas included from other participants through discovery.
7. Additional Changes to Reporting Requirements Are Beyond the Scope of
This Proceeding
a. Comments
    31. Public Citizen argues that additional disclosure improvements
are required to ensure the public has access to accurate information
about the shippers that secure shipping capacity on natural gas
pipelines. Public Citizen states that currently the Commission's
regulations at 18 CFR 284.13(b) delegate such reporting to the
pipelines, allowing natural gas pipelines to post shipper information
on their website, rather than having the Commission publish such
information in a centralized format on the Commission's website. Public
Citizen further argues that natural gas pipelines' compliance with 18
CFR 284.13(b) is haphazard, with natural gas pipelines prioritizing
their own website content and making it difficult to find the
Commission-required disclosures. Public Citizen contends that the
Commission's rule requiring pipelines to archive such information for
only 90 days impedes the public interest, because most pipelines charge
a fee to access material older than 90 days. In addition, Public
Citizen argues that it is difficult to locate shipper information on
many pipeline websites. Therefore, Public Citizen requests that the
Commission expand the final rule to include natural gas pipeline
reporting requirements. Public Citizen suggest that the Commission post
shipper data and other information on the Commission's website and
provide the public with free archival access.
b. Commission Determination
    32. We decline to expand the final rule as Public Citizen requests.
The NOPR did not propose reforms related to these issues raised by
Public Citizen. The final rule is intended to improve the efficiency of
general NGA section 4 rate cases, not to revise separate and unrelated
reporting requirements already set forth in the Commission's
regulations. Therefore, Public Citizen's concerns are outside the scope
of this proceeding and we decline to address them at this time.

III. Information Collection Statement

    33. The information collection requirements contained in this final
rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\47\ OMB's
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\48\ Upon approval of a collection
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \48\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. This final rule modifies the currently approved information
collection associated with FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change
(Non-Formal) (OMB Control No. 1902-0154) (FERC-545) by updating the
requirements for submitting a rate case under section 4 of the NGA.
    35. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive
Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426 via email ([email protected]) or telephone
(202) 502-8663).
    36. In the NOPR, the Commission solicited comments on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondents' burden, including the use of automated information
techniques.
    37. Title: Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal).
    38. Action: Modification of collection of information in accordance
with RM21-18-000.
    39. OMB Control No.: 1902-0154.
    40. Respondents for this Rulemaking: Gas pipelines filing an NGA
section 4 rate case.
    41. Frequency of Information Collection: As needed for section 4
rate cases.
    42. Necessity of Information: This final rule requires all
statements, schedules and workpapers submitted during a section 4 rate
case to be submitted in native format with all links and formulas
intact. The modification to this collection is intended to reduce the
overall burden for all rate case participants involved in a section 4
rate case.
    43. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the changes and
has determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy

industry. The Commission has specific, objective support for the burden
estimates associated with the information collection requirements.
    44. The Commission estimates that the final rule will affect the
burden \49\ and cost \50\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \50\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided
in this section is based on the salary figures for May 2021 posted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector
(available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm) and
scaled to reflect benefits using the relative importance of employer
costs for employee compensation from March 2022 (available at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The hourly estimates
for salary plus benefits are: Computer and Information Systems
Manager (Occupation Code: 11-3021), $111.63; Computer and
Information Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-1210), $76.35; Electrical
Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071), $77.02; Legal (Occupation Code:
23-0000), $145.35. The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits)
weighting all of the above skill sets evenly, is $102.59. We round
it to $103/hour.

                                           Modifications to FERC 545 From Final Rule in Docket No. RM21-18-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               A.                       B.              C.              D.                        E.                                  F.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Annual
                                                      Annual         estimated
                                     Number of       estimated       number of      Average burden hours & cost per     Total estimated burden  hours &
      Area of modification          respondents      number of       responses                 response               total  estimated cost  (Column D x
                                                   responses per    (Column B x                                                    Column E)
                                                    respondent       Column C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Section 4 Rate Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC 545: Annual Section 4 Rate                8               1               8  100 hours; $10,300................  800 hours; $82,400
 Cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. For the purposes of estimating burden in this final rule, in
the table above, we conservatively estimate the annual total of general
section 4 rate cases to be eight. This number is higher than the
Commission's average number of section 4 rate cases, but we created our
estimate to allow for potential additional rate case submissions.
    46. FERC-545 is required to implement rates pursuant to sections 4,
5, and 16 of NGA, (15 U.S.C. 717c& 717o, Pub. L. 75 688, 52 Stat. 822
and 830). NGA sections 4, 5, and 16 authorize the Commission to inquire
into rate structures and methodologies and to set rates at a just and
reasonable level. Specifically, a natural gas pipeline must obtain
Commission authorization for all rates and charges made, demanded, or
received in connection with the transportation or sale of natural gas
in interstate commerce. The modification as described in this final
rule in Docket No. RM21-18-000 only impacts filings under section 4 of
the NGA. The collections associated with sections 5 and 16 remain
unchanged.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    47. 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
actions proposed to be taken here fall within categorical exclusions in
the Commission's regulations for rules regarding information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for rules regarding sales, exchange,
and transportation of natural gas that require no construction of
facilities.\52\ Therefore, an environmental review is unnecessary and
has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Env't Pol'y Act, Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783
(1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \52\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5) & 380.4(a)(27)
(2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    48. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \53\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission intends to pose the least possible burden on all
entities both large and small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. The final rule only applies to natural gas pipelines who file a
section 4 rate case. There are a total of 145 entities that may file a
rate change and may be impacted by the final rule. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) defines a small entity in the category of,
``Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas'' \54\ by entities with fewer
than $30 million of annual receipts. Out of the total number of
entities, only five are small entities as defined by the SBA (~3% of
the total population). We estimate the annual additional costs of
filing a section 4 rate case to be $10,300. We further estimate an
average of eight responses per year and conservatively estimate that
one may be a small entity. Therefore, the proposed rule does not pose a
significant change to small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Small Business Administration NAICS Category 486210,
``Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas'' under 13 CFR Chapter 1
Part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    50. 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).
    51. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    52. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    53. This final rule is effective December 23, 2022. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Danly is concurring with a
separate statement attached.

    Issued: November 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket No. RM21-18-000

Revised Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural Gas
Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs
(Issued November 17, 2022)
DANLY, Commissioner, concurring:

    I concur with today's final rule as I believe it complies with the
Natural Gas Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.\1\ I write
separately to express my apprehension that the Commission does not
fully appreciate the burden that will be incurred, or how long it will
take, for jurisdictional entities to come into compliance.\2\ It is my
understanding that some pipeline companies currently create each
statement and its supporting schedules using different software that do
not, by themselves, link. Requiring links may require a pipeline
company to upgrade existing, or implement entirely new, software
systems--tasks which oftentimes are neither simple nor inexpensive. And
while ``pipelines are allowed to recover those costs through their
rates,'' \3\ I would have preferred to have solicited additional
comment on the cost and timing of the software upgrades that this rule
might require in order to better inform our decision on whether and
when to impose these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Filing & Reporting Requirements for Interstate Nat.
Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs, 181 FERC ] 61,121 (2022).
    \2\ Id. P 12 (``Moreover, while pipelines may incur increased
costs to comply with this final rule, we find that any additional
burden would be limited. . . .'').
    \3\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

James P. Danly,

Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2022-25601 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                 United States
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                             Washington, DC 20460
                                                      Approval expires xx/xx/xx
                                                               OMB No.2050-0068

        Notification of Ownership Change for Underground Storage Tanks
Implementing Agency Name And Address:
                         IMPLEMENTING AGENCY USE ONLY

ID NUMBER:

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE ENTERED INTO COMPUTER:

DATA ENTRY CLERK INITIALS:
                     INSTRUCTIONS AND GENERAL INFORMATION
OWNER WAS CONTACTED TO CLARIFY RESPONSES, COMMENTS:
Please type or print in ink.  Also, be sure you have signatures in ink.

The primary purpose of this notification form is to inform implementing agencies of ownership changes for underground storage tank (UST) systems that store or have stored petroleum or hazardous substances.

Federal regulation requires UST owners to notify the implementing agency of any ownership change for USTs storing regulated substances after October 13, 2018.
Who Must Notify?  40 CFR part 280, as amended, requires owners of USTs that store regulated substances (unless exempted) to notify implementing agencies of any ownership changes.  Owner is defined as:
      In the case of an UST in use on November 8, 1984, or brought into use after that date, any person who owns an UST used for storage, use, or dispensing of regulated substances; or
      In the case of an UST in use before November 8, 1984, but no longer in use on that date, any person who owned the UST immediately before its discontinuation.
What USTs Are Included?  An UST system is defined as any one or combination of tanks that is used to contain an accumulation of regulated substances, and whose volume (including connected underground piping) is 10 percent or more beneath the ground. Regulated USTs store petroleum or hazardous substances (see What Substances Are Covered to the right).  This includes UST systems with field-constructed tanks and airport hydrant fuel distribution systems.
When And Who To Notify?  Any owner or operator who assumes ownership of a regulated UST system must submit this notification form to the implementing agency within 30 days of assuming such ownership.

What Tanks Are Excluded From Notification (see § 280.10 and § 280.12)?
      Tanks removed from the ground before May 8, 1986;
      Farm or residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes;
      Tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored;
      Septic tanks;
      Certain pipeline facilities regulated under chapters 601 and 603 of Title 49;
      Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, or lagoons;
      Storm water or wastewater collection systems;
      Flow-through process tanks;
      Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering operations;
      Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or tunnels;
      Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less;
      Wastewater treatment tank systems;
      UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;
      UST systems that are part of an emergency generator system at nuclear power generation facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR part 50.
What Substances Are Covered?  The notification requirements apply to USTs containing petroleum or certain hazardous substances.  Petroleum includes gasoline, used oil, diesel fuel, crude oil or any fraction thereof which is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute).  Hazardous substances are those found in Section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, with the exception of those substances regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Penalties: Any owner who knowingly fails to notify or submits false information shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $16,000 for each tank for which notification is not given or for which false information is given.

  OWNERSHIP OF USTs
Corporation, Individual, Public Agency, Or Other Entity
                      FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION OF USTs
Current Owner Name
Previous Owner Name
Facility Name

   Check here if name changed after ownership
Current Owner Address
Previous Owner Address
   Check this box if the physical address of the USTs is the same as the current owner address.  If address is different, enter address below:

If required by implementing agency, give the geographic location of USTs either in decimal degrees, or degrees, minutes, and seconds.  Example: Latitude: 36.12348 (or 36 7' 24.4"),  Longitude: -106.549876 (or -106 32' 59.6")
	Latitude ______________________     Longitude ______________________
Current Owner Phone
Previous Owner Phone
Date Of Ownership Change

Signature Of Current Owner: _______________________________________

Date: ____________________

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42663]
[DOCID:fr24au09-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13547-000]

Free Flow Power Ohio River 10, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 14, 2009.
    On July 14, 2009, Free Flow Power Ohio River 10, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Lake
Mongoulois Hydrokinetic Energy Project, located on the Atchafalaya
River, Saint Martin Parish, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 1,120 turbine-generator
units configured in a series of turbine arrays which in turn will be
grouped to form turbine fields; (2) a combination of freestanding
pilings, a floating barge-like platform, or existing shore
infrastructure such as dock pilings onto which the turbine arrays will
be moored; (3) submersible electric cables interconnecting the arrays
within each turbine field and transmit the turbine field's generation
to a shore station; (4) several shore stations each consisting of less
than 100 square meters which will transition the submersible cabling to
the overhead transmission; (5) a 4.6 mile, 69 kV line interconnecting
the shore stations and delivering power to the project substation; and
(6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would generate about
98 gigawatt-hours annually.
    Applicant contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930, phone: (978)
226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13547) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20226 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


RFS Independent Third Party List of Potentially Invalid RINs (RFS2300): Instructions for Completing

Who must report
   * All independent third-party auditors that verify RINs beginning on September 16, 2014.
Reporting requirements
   * 40 CFR 80.1451(g)(2) sets forth the additional reporting requirements (available at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=354294fee688f6d54979e2638c0decf5&node=se40.17.80_11451&rgn=div8).
   * Provide the identifying information for any RIN batches that the Independent Third Party Auditor has identified as Potentially Invalid RINs (PIR) pursuant to 80.1474.
   * Required fields and NA values  -  Certain report fields or parameters may be specific to select product types. If a report field does not apply to the reported batch, enter the value "NA". Do not leave the field blank.
Reporting deadlines
   * Independent third-party auditors shall report on a quarterly basis:
                          Production Calendar Quarter
                              Time Period Covered
                           Quarterly Report Deadline
Quarter 1
January 1  -  March 31
June 1
Quarter 2
April 1  -  June 30
September 1
Quarter 3
July 1  -  September 30
December 1
Quarter 4
October 1  -  December 31
March 31

How to submit reports
   * EPA maintains report templates, electronic submission procedures and additional support options at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/reporting/cdx.htm.

Field Instructions
Field No.
Field Name
Units
Field Formats, Codes & Special Instructions
1
Report Form ID

AAAAAA; Character.
Enter RFS2300
2
Report Type

A; Character. Specify if the data submitted in this report is original or if it is being resubmitted. Submit only one original report; any corrections or updates should be marked as a resubmission.
O = Original
R = Resubmission
3
CBI

A; Character. Specify if the data contained within the report is claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR Part 2, subpart B:
Y = Confidential Business Information
N = Non-Confidential Business Information
4
Report Date

MM/DD/YYYY; Character. Enter the date the original or resubmitted report is created.
5
Compliance Period Year

YYYY; Character. Enter the averaging/compliance year the report covers.
6
Compliance Period Quarter

AA; Character. Enter the quarter under the compliance year this report covers:

Q1:     Quarter 1 (January  -  March)
Q2:     Quarter 2 (April  -  June)
Q3:     Quarter 3 (July  -  September)
Q4:     Quarter 4 (October  -  December)
7
Independent Third-Party Auditor Company ID

AAAA; Character. Enter the EPA assigned four-character ID for the Independent Third Party Auditor.
8
Independent Third-Party Auditor Company Name

AAAA...; Character. Enter the registered name of the Independent Third-Party Auditor
9
Audited Renewable Fuel Producer Company Name

AAAA...; Character. Enter the registered name of the renewable fuel producer audited under an approved QAP under 80.1469.
10
Audited Renewable Fuel Producer Company ID

AAAA. Character. Enter the four digit company ID of the renewable fuel producer audited under an approved QAP under 80.1469.
11
Audited Renewable Fuel Producer Facility ID

AAAAA. Character. Enter the five digit facility ID of the renewable fuel production facility audited under an approved QAP under 80.1469.
12
RIN Year

YYYY. Character. Enter the RIN Year representing the vintage of the batch identified as potentially invalid.
13
Batch ID of the renewable fuel

AAAAAA. Character. Enter the six digit character ID representing the batch identified as potentially invalid.
14
Potentially Invalid RIN Code

AAA. Character. Enter one of the three digit character code representing the reason the batch was identified as potentially invalid.

DUP:     A duplicate of a valid RIN
VOL:     Incorrect volumes or not standardized to 60˚ F
IEV:      Incorrect equivalence value
DEF:     Does not represent renewable fuel (§80.1401)
DCD:    Assigned an incorrect "D" code
OTH:    Other improper generation

15
Description why RIN batch identified as potentially invalid

AAAA.... Character (1000 character max). Provide a description as to why the RIN batch has been identified by the Independent third-party auditor as potentially invalid.

                       Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is disclosed in the estimates of the individual report form instructions. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25510]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4647-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Maine; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-4647-DR), dated March 15, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 15, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Maine resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the
period of October 30 to October 31, 2021, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Maine.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William F. Roy, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Knox, Waldo, and York Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Maine are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-09297 Filed 4-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 27, 2006

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1995-557

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of AMERIJET INTERNATIONAL, INC. (AMERIJET) filed 12/22/05
for:

XX  Renewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide
the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of property, and mail between Miami
and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on the one hand, and Caracas, Maracaibo,
and Valencia, Venezuela, on the other hand, via intermediate and beyond
points named in the U.S.-Venezuela aviation agreement, and to integrate
this authority with its existing exemption and certificate authority.

Applicant rep: John L. Richardson<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions and remarks, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: February 27, 2006, through
February 27, 2008.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Venezuela.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond
points is limited to points named in the U.S.-Venezuela aviation
agreement for which Amerijet holds authority to serve under certificates
and exemptions issued by the Department.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon
Amerijet rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond
rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless
Amerijet notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights); (b) should there be a request by any carrier
to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Amerijet’s
authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but
that are not then being used by Amerijet, the holding of such authority
by route integration will not be considered as providing any preference
for Amerijet in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine
which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

Remarks: The U.S.-Venezuela aviation agreement does not provide for
coterminalization of Caracas and Maracaibo or Caracas and Valencia.
These points may only be served as separate terminal points.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 PAGE