[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30620-30628]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 141 and 385

[Docket No. RM19-12-000; Order No. 859]

Revisions to the Filing Process for Commission Forms

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Commission is adopting eXtensible Business Reporting
Language (XBRL) as the standard for filing the Commission Form Nos. 1,
1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, 6, 6-Q, 60, and 714. The
use of XBRL will make the information in these forms easier for filers
to submit and data users to analyze, and assist in automating
regulatory filings. The Commission believes that transitioning from the
current Visual FoxPro system to XBRL will decrease the costs, over
time, of preparing the necessary data for submission and complying with
future changes to filing requirements set forth by the Commission. In
addition, the Commission is revising its regulations to require filers
of Form No. 1-F to file their report in electronic media.

DATES: This rule is effective August 26, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hudson (Technical Information),
Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michael Chase, Office of General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                numbers

I. Background...............................................           2
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking...........................           3
III. Discussion.............................................           4
    A. Process for Implementing the XBRL-Based Solution.....           7
        1. Timeline and Structure...........................           7
        2. XBRL Taxonomy....................................          18
    B. Regulatory Text Revisions............................          26
IV. Information Collection Statement........................          27
V. Environmental Analysis...................................          36
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act..............................          37
VII. Document Availability..................................          41
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.........          44

    1. The Commission is adopting eXtensible Business Reporting
Language (XBRL) as the standard for filing the Commission's Form Nos.
1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, 6, 6-Q, 60, and 714 (VFP
Forms or Commission Forms). The Commission concludes that adoption of
XBRL will make the information in these forms easier for filers to
submit and data users to analyze, and assist in automating regulatory
filings. The use of XBRL also will increase efficiency and decrease the
costs, over time, of preparing the necessary data for submission and
complying with future changes to filing requirements set forth by the
Commission. In addition, the Commission is revising its regulations to
require Form No. 1-F filers to file their report in electronic media
pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2011.

I. Background

    2. Under the Commission's regulations, certain entities are
required to report information to the Commission by filing one or more
forms.\1\ Currently, this information is transmitted to the Commission
using a Commission-distributed software application called Visual
FoxPro (VFP). Each entity is required to gather its relevant financial
and other data and enter the data into VFP on its own computer system.
The entity then uses the VFP software to transmit the information to
the Commission. Microsoft Corporation, the developer of the VFP
software, no longer supports this application. As a result, on April
25, 2015, the Commission issued an order announcing its intention to
replace the current VFP filing format for the VFP Forms with an
eXtensible Markup Language (XML)-based filing format.\2\ In the April
2015 Order, the Commission stated that XML is the current industry
standard for the submission of electronic data. In support of this
proposed change, the Commission stated that the XML data format has
significant advantages over other approaches because it is non-
proprietary and would establish a single standard for nearly all
Commission forms, while also providing consistency with the
Commission's current electronic tariff (eTariff) filings and the
Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) systems.\3\ In the April 2015 Order,
the Commission directed Commission staff to seek the assistance of the
North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) \4\ in the process of
developing standards for the submission of the VFP Forms to the
Commission.\5\ NAESB facilitated 18 meetings to discuss the
transitioning of the forms to the XML process. In addition to these
meetings, Commission staff analyzed different methods for

collecting forms information with other federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR 141.1 (requiring annual filing of FERC Form No.
1, Annual report of Major electric utilities, licensees and others);
18 CFR 141.2 (requiring annual filing of FERC Form No. 1-F, Annual
report for Nonmajor public utilities and licensees); 18 CFR 260.1
(requiring annual filing of FERC Form No. 2, Annual report for Major
natural gas companies); 18 CFR 260.2 (requiring annual filing of
FERC Form No. 2-A, Annual report for Nonmajor natural gas
companies); 18 CFR 141.400 and 18 CFR 260.300 (requiring quarterly
filing of FERC Form No. 3-Q, Quarterly financial report of electric
utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies); 18 CFR 357.2
(requiring annual filing of FERC Form No. 6, Annual Report of Oil
Pipeline Companies); 18 CFR 357.4 (requiring quarterly filing of
FERC Form No. 6-Q, Quarterly report of oil pipeline companies); 18
CFR 141.51 (requiring annual filing of FERC Form No. 714, Annual
Electric Balancing Authority Area and Planning Area Report); and 18
CFR 366.23 and 18 CFR 369.1 (requiring annual filing of FERC Form
No. 60, Annual reports of centralized service companies).
    \2\ Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms, 151 FERC ]
61,025 (2015) (April 2015 Order).
    \3\ Id. P 5.
    \4\ NAESB serves as a forum for the development and promotion of
standards for the wholesale and retail natural gas and electric
industries. In response to the Commission's request on this matter,
NAESB performed specific outreach to the oil pipeline industry to
include participation from that sector.
    \5\ April 2015 Order, 151 FERC ] 61,025 at P 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    3. On January 17, 2019, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in this proceeding, proposing to adopt XBRL as the standard
for filing Commission Forms.\6\ The Commission stated that the XBRL
standard includes all the advantages of the XML format, such as its
non-proprietary nature, its efficient sharing of data across different
information systems, and its ability to include identified proprietary
formats (e.g., PDF, Microsoft Word, etc.), while also structuring the
data with tags that utilize standard taxonomies to capture the inherent
characteristics of the information as well as the value of the data.\7\
The Commission noted that the XBRL standard is required for filing
forms by a number of other federal agencies, including the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Energy, and the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.\8\ The Commission
stated that XBRL is an international standard that enables the
reporting of comprehensive, consistent, interoperable data that allows
industry and other data users to automate submission, extraction, and
analysis.\9\ The Commission also stated that the use of XBRL would
facilitate the implementation of changes to its reporting requirements
by enabling future changes without the need for costly development
procedures.\10\ The Commission sought comment generally on the proposed
transition from VFP to XBRL and specifically on the time period of
historical VFP Form data that should be converted by the Commission to
XBRL upon launch of the new XBRL system.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Revisions to the Filing Process for Commission Forms, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 166 FERC ] 61,027 (2019) (NOPR).
    \7\ Id. P 8.
    \8\ Id. P 9 & n.12.
    \9\ Id. P 9.
    \10\ Id. P 15.
    \11\ Id. P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    4. Nine commenters \12\ filed comments in response to the NOPR,
broadly supporting the use of XBRL to replace the current software for
filing Commission Forms. The commenters generally agree that using XBRL
to file Commission Forms would be superior to the current VFP-based
filing format or a customized XML-based format. No commenters provided
any alternative to XBRL or opposed the Commission's proposal to replace
VFP with XBRL as the standard for submitting Commission Forms. Based on
the need to transition to a new filing format and the comments received
in response to the NOPR, the Commission will adopt the XBRL standard
for filing Commission Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q electric, 3-Q
natural gas, 6, 6-Q, 60, and 714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ American Gas Association (AGA); the Association of Oil Pipe
Lines (AOPL); Donnelly Financial Solutions; the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI); Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA); National Grid USA (National Grid); Systrends USA;
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC); and XBRL
US, Inc. (XBRL US). In addition, the Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission intends to make the data from the XBRL filings
available to the public, as it does now for the VFP-filed Commission
Forms, and provide a system that will allow for easier downloading of
the data. The Commission will convert the XBRL data to a human-readable
form for each company, similar to how the VFP Forms are currently
published in the Commission's eLibrary system. The Commission also will
create a database that parties can use to search the forms data and
download the information.
    6. The Commission intends to proceed with the development and
implementation of the XBRL standard using the following process. After
publication of this final rule, the Commission will make available a
draft of the XBRL taxonomy and other related documents. After public
release of these items, Commission staff will convene technical
conference(s) to discuss the taxonomy and other related documents, any
technical concerns, and any issues related to the transition, including
the implementation schedule. At the conclusion of the technical
conference(s), the Commission will continue to collect comments.
Following review of those comments, the Commission will issue an order
adopting the final taxonomy, protocols, and an implementation guide,
and establishing an implementation schedule. Industry participants will
be afforded reasonable time to develop their software and the
Commission will make available a platform for the testing of the
filers' submissions.

A. Process for Implementing the XBRL-Based Solution

1. Timeline and Structure
a. Comments
    7. In providing support for the Commission's proposed use of XBRL
for filing Commission Forms, the commenters raise issues for Commission
consideration to ensure a smooth transition from VFP to XBRL, including
recommendations for the timing of implementing XBRL as the standard and
how much historical data the Commission should initially make available
upon conversion to XBRL. In its comments, National Grid recommends that
the Commission set at least one technical conference to obtain
stakeholder input on any revisions that should be made to the
Commission's XBRL software.\13\ AOPL requests that the implementation
schedule allow time for sufficient technical conferences to ensure
issues are adequately vetted and addressed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ National Grid Comments at 6.
    \14\ AOPL Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. AGA recommends that the Commission develop a compliance timeline
and structure that are not burdensome to either filers or reviewers of
the filings.\15\ AGA notes the Commission should provide sufficient
time for software evaluation, development, contracting, implementation,
and testing. EEI encourages the Commission to ensure that adequate time
and resources are dedicated to implementing the new XBRL-based
Commission Forms filing process and notes that the initial reporting
period should afford some flexibility to account for unanticipated
technical issues that may arise, including the ability to continue to
use VFP, if necessary, and a willingness to provide extensions of time
in case of unanticipated technical challenges.\16\ EEI states that this
accommodation is needed because the NOPR does not contemplate a gradual
phase-in of the XBRL system.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AGA Comments at 2.
    \16\ EEI Comments at 4-5.
    \17\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. National Grid urges the Commission to take expedited action to
develop the XBRL system to minimize the use of the legacy VFP
system.\18\ National Grid also recommends that the Commission implement
a one-year safe harbor period to allow filing entities to use the
legacy VFP software if problems are encountered with adopting the new
format.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ National Grid Comments at 3.
    \19\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. EEI requests that the Commission provide a minimum of 18 months
from the final rule for the industry to develop and implement the new
software.\20\ AGA recommends that the Commission adopt a two- to three-
year XBRL transition period, while also permitting early implementation
for companies that can implement the XBRL system in

less time.\21\ To aid the XBRL transition, AGA suggests that a
``staggered approach'' could be adopted in place of, or in addition to,
a delayed mandate with early adoption process. Specifically, AGA
proposes that the Commission select a date for pipelines to file their
Form No. 2-As in the required XBRL filing format that falls after the
date that the Form No. 2 filers are required to make their filings. AGA
suggests that this staggered approach would allow the XBRL software
vendors and service providers to better allocate resources to support
the XBRL implementation for all companies.\22\ As an alternative to the
two- to three-year extension of the compliance deadline, AGA suggests
that the Commission establish a formal grace period, possibly for 30
days, for all filings requiring the XBRL filing format during a two-
year phase-in period.\23\ In addition, AGA recommends that the
Commission not require interested entities to use special software to
access and view the filed financial data, rather suggesting that
information filed with the Commission be accessible and readable. AGA
states that interested persons should have the ability to download the
information in PDF form or via other common electronic means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EEI Comments at 4-5.
    \21\ AGA Comments at 5.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Some commenters request that the Commission implement a testing
period for the new XBRL standard. For example, AOPL states it
anticipates its members will want opportunities to participate in a
testing interface with the new XBRL filing method in advance of
implementation.\24\ Similarly, EEI asks that the Commission provide
filers with the opportunity to participate in testing the revisions to
the filing process and the XBRL system itself, in advance of the
technical conference(s), by providing as much additional information as
possible to participants regarding its proposal to allow a more
granular understanding of the XBRL process and system.\25\ XBRL US
recommends that that the Commission provide guidance and training to
filers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ AOPL Comments at 4.
    \25\ EEI Comments at 4.
    \26\ XBRL US Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. AGA cautions the Commission that its members will not only need
to determine how to comply with any new requirements, if applicable,
but also potentially need to review the forms filed by the interstate
pipelines from which the utilities receive service to ensure that the
XBRL versions are accurate and consistent with historical data. AGA
requests that the Commission afford customers and interested persons
sufficient opportunity to review the filings, determine whether any
substantive changes have been made, and raise concerns.\27\ AGA
requests that the Commission not make any determination in this
proceeding that would limit the ability of companies to use the
Commission's forms for state compliance purposes. AGA notes that
various state commissions have either adopted the forms for their own
purposes or permit entities to file information at the state level
consistent with the Commission's forms and methods to comply with state
requirements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ AGA Comments at 5.
    \28\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    13. As stated above, after publication of this final rule, the
Commission will release a draft XBRL taxonomy and other related
documents.\29\ Following the release of the draft taxonomy, the
Commission will convene staff-led technical conference(s) to enable
interested industry members, vendors, and the public to discuss and
propose revisions to the draft taxonomy, along with other important
components of the XBRL system. In response to comments by AGA, National
Grid, AOPL, and EEI, the technical conference(s) will serve as the
forum to discuss any issues related to the transition, including the
implementation schedule, the idiosyncrasies of specific forms, how
footnotes will be programmed, and how ``cellnotes'' will be treated in
the conversion of historical VFP Form data. The Commission intends to
provide a reasonable amount of time for issues to be vetted and
addressed in the technical conference(s). At the conclusion of the
technical conference process, the Commission will continue to solicit
comments and, after reviewing those comments, the Commission will issue
an order adopting the final taxonomy, protocols, implementation guide
and other documents, and establishing an implementation schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As explained in the NOPR, the use of XBRL results in the
creation of a taxonomy. Taxonomies are files containing relevant
business terminology, their meanings, their data types,
relationships among terms, and the rules or formulas that files for
submission must follow. NOPR, 166 FERC ] 61,027 at P 14. Taxonomies
are not permanent documents, but rather are code that describes
elements that can be used in other programs and software. The
taxonomy contains all the information needed to create a form
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In response to comments by EEI and AGA concerning the
compliance timeline and structure, the Commission plans to allow a
reasonable period of time following the technical conference process
for software evaluation, development, implementation and testing, while
also attempting to minimize the burden on filers and reviewers of the
filings, to the extent possible. However, as explained in the NOPR,
because Microsoft Corporation no longer supports VFP, and its continued
use has resulted in compatibility and maintenance difficulties for the
Commission and some filers, the Commission will strive to fully
transition to XBRL and retire VFP as soon as practicable. Given the
importance of ensuring that the data collected through Commission Forms
is uniform and available in the same format at the same time, we do not
anticipate that a one-year safe harbor period to continue allowing
filers to use the VFP software after the new XBRL system is
implemented, as suggested by National Grid, will be warranted.
Moreover, contrary to EEI's suggestion, we do not anticipate allowing
the continued use of VFP after the implementation of XBRL. Following
discussions at the technical conference(s), including about the
implementation date for XBRL, the Commission will issue an order with
the final implementation schedule and process. To the extent a filer
encounters technical difficulties in filing Commission Forms using the
new XBRL system after deployment, that filer will be free to seek an
extension of time for compliance.
    15. In addition, as requested by AGA, AOPL, and EEI, the Commission
plans to provide an opportunity for interested industry members to test
a version of the XBRL system before implementing the new XBRL system.
The technical conference(s) will be open to the public and the
Commission encourages all interested entities, including vendors, to
participate in the upcoming technical conference(s) and to test the
system. We reiterate that in this proceeding we are not changing the
information to be collected in Commission Forms. All information
currently collected in Commission Forms will continue to be collected;
however, where it will be collected and how it will be validated and
displayed will change through the adoption of the XBRL system.\30\ We
will

not require the use of special software to access the data and we will
ensure there is the ability to download the information in a human-
readable form, as suggested by AGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As stated in the NOPR, the proposed XBRL-based FERC Form
Nos. 1, 1-F, and 3-Q electric will incorporate energy storage-
related data which the Commission required be submitted under Order
No. 784, but had not been included in the VFP Forms due to the
technical limitations of VFP addressed with this final rule. See
Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services; Accounting and
Financial Reporting for New Electric Storage Technologies, Order No.
784, 144 FERC ] 61,056 (2013). See also Accounting and Reporting
Guidance for New Electric Storage Technologies, Docket No. AI14-1-
000, at 1-2 (Feb. 20, 2014). Other similar changes made to the data
to be collected and reported in Commission Forms that have been
previously approved by the Commission but that could not be reported
due to the limitations of VFP, if any, will be included among the
data collected using the new XBRL system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. While recognizing XBRL US's recommendation that the Commission
provide guidance and training to filers, the Commission will provide
guidance on how to use the new XBRL-based filing system through
documentation, but the Commission does not anticipate that it will
itself provide training on the new system. Any guidance documents will
be published online and made available in draft form for review before
final publication.
    17. When the Commission receives the forms in XBRL format, it will
make those forms available in a human-readable version, similar to how
they are currently published in the Commission's eLibrary system.
Therefore, an entity interested in reviewing forms after they have been
submitted in XBRL will be able to do so. As a result, the Commission
does not believe, contrary to AGA's request for additional time to
review Commission Form submissions, that conversion to XBRL warrants
more time to review these filings because the current proceeding is not
changing the information collected in Commission Forms.
2. XBRL Taxonomy
a. Comments
    18. Most commenters emphasize their need for a comprehensive review
of the proposed XBRL taxonomy prior to any technical conference(s).
INGAA states it is crucial for the Commission to ensure adequate
transition time once the taxonomy is finalized.\31\ EEI states it
prefers that the taxonomy and mapping be predetermined for each form,
noting that the current format of each form should dictate the common
taxonomy and mapping for that form and that the footnotes to the
financial statements also should be filed as a single block of
text.\32\ AOPL suggests that the Commission develop a taxonomy that has
all necessary customization to accommodate the unique requirements of
the respective forms, including the Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q filed by oil
pipelines.\33\ AOPL also states its members will be interested during
the technical conferences in understanding how the draft taxonomy
addresses tagging within footnotes and the ability to use ``cellnotes''
in Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q, and how they will be treated in the
Commission's conversion of historical VFP Form data to XBRL.\34\ AOPL
suggests that the Commission consider development of document and/or
workbook templates that track the display of the existing Form Nos. 6
and 6-Q for ease of reviewing form submissions and to help lessen the
burden of XBRL implementation.\35\ Systrends USA requests that the
Commission provide a submission portal so that third-party software can
transfer the completed Commission Forms directly from an application to
the Commission, similar to the end-user submission portal designed for
EQR that uses a web service to upload the document.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ INGAA Comments at 2.
    \32\ EEI Comments at 3.
    \33\ AOPL Comments at 3.
    \34\ Id. at 3-4.
    \35\ Id. at 4.
    \36\ Systrends USA Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. WUTC states that the Commission should be the leader in
establishing a regulatory taxonomy, and suggests that development of
any draft taxonomy be conducted in concert with the states and the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), and
include the capacity for state-specific data along with Commission-
based interstate operational and financial data.\37\ According to WUTC,
without a Commission-developed taxonomy that incorporates state
requirements, the states would be required to recreate new taxonomies
which would not necessarily be readable by other state agencies.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ WUTC Comments at 2-3.
    \38\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. As to how much historical data should be converted to the new
system to coincide with the launch, INGAA supports the NOPR's proposal
to incorporate the prior three years of VFP Form data from the current
VFP system.\39\ By contrast, EEI suggests that the transfer of
historical data should be deferred entirely until after the successful
launch of the XBRL system.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ INGAA Comments at 2.
    \40\ EEI Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. With respect to the involvement of NAESB in the technical
conference(s), INGAA supports the idea that NAESB be involved with the
staff-led technical conference, as this will allow all interested
industry members to discuss and propose revisions to the Commission's
draft taxonomy in consultation with NAESB. INGAA notes that NAESB's
involvement will also provide interested industry members with an
opportunity to propose revisions to the Commission's draft taxonomy
before it is finalized.\41\ However, EEI notes that, to the extent
staff-led technical conference(s), or any other aspects of the
implementation of XBRL are hosted or otherwise coordinated by NAESB,
they should not be limited to NAESB members, nor should participants be
required to pay fees to NAESB, in order to have input or the ability to
vote on any proposals.\42\ EEI states that this will ensure that all
stakeholders impacted by the proposal will have the opportunity to
participate and provide comment on any proposal.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ INGAA Comments at 2.
    \42\ EEI Comments at 3-4.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    22. The Commission plans to address all technical details of the
XBRL system in its draft taxonomy and other documents released prior to
the technical conference(s) to encourage input and discussion on their
components and implementation. Accordingly, we find Systrends USA's
comments requesting a submission portal \44\ and XBRL US's
recommendation to use automated validation rules and implement a
process to conduct public reviews of new taxonomy releases \45\ to be
premature. If necessary, the Commission will address technical topics
such as these during the technical conference(s). Future changes to the
taxonomy and related code can be made under the Secretary of the
Commission's delegated authority to make such changes.\46\ Before the
Commission implements any such changes, notice of the proposed change
will be provided sufficiently in advance to notify companies and
provide them time to comply with the changes to the taxonomy and
related code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Systrends USA Comments at 1.
    \45\ XBRL US Comments at 5-6.
    \46\ In particular, Sec.  375.302(z) of the Commission's
regulations authorizes the Secretary of the Commission or designee
to ``[i]ssue instructions pertaining to allowable electronic file
and document formats . . . and procedural guidelines for submissions
via the internet, on electric media, or via other electronic
means.'' 18 CFR 375.302(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Regarding WUTC's suggestion that the development of any draft
taxonomy be conducted in concert with state commissions and NARUC, the
Commission encourages state utility commissions to participate in the
technical conference(s). With respect to

WUTC's suggestion that the Commission's taxonomy incorporate state
requirements, we do not plan to incorporate state requirements into the
Commission-developed taxonomy. Incorporating a diverse array of state
requirements into the Commission's taxonomy would lead to potential
challenges and delays in implementing and maintaining the new system.
However, XBRL is extensible in nature and filings can be created to
meet particular state commission requirements without affecting the
Commission's requirements. Furthermore, because the Commission is not
revising the substance of the required filings, it does not need to
take into account state compliance purposes in this proceeding, as
suggested by AGA.
    24. With regard to converting historical data, the new XBRL system
and the conversion of historical data to XBRL will be developed
concurrently. Therefore, at this time, contrary to EEI's suggestion,
the Commission does not anticipate deferring the transfer of historical
data until after the XBRL system is launched. If the conversion of
historical data delays the development of the new XBRL system, then the
Commission may decide to defer the transfer of historical data until
after the launch of the XBRL system.
    25. This proceeding will continue to be open to all interested
industry members, vendors, and the public. The Commission directs its
staff to initiate technical conference(s) and to lead the transition
effort and welcomes input from all interested parties. The Commission
appreciates the assistance and input that NAESB has provided to date in
facilitating meetings to discuss the transition and sees value in
continuing to work with NAESB and its members, as appropriate, to
facilitate interaction with filers and users about the new XBRL system.

B. Regulatory Text Revisions

    26. With the exception of Form No. 1-F, current regulations already
provide for the filing of Form Nos. 1, 2, 2-A, 3-Q electric, 3-Q
natural gas, 6, 6-Q, 60, and 714 in electronic format according to the
instructions for each form and filing. The Commission sees no need for
further regulatory text changes pertaining to these forms. Upon
completion of the technical conference process, however, the Commission
will issue an order revising the filing format instructions for the
forms to accord with the results of the technical conference(s). These
instructions will cover only the format for making the electronic
flings and will not include any revisions to the substance of the
required filings, which the Commission will make when necessary in
appropriate separate proceedings. By this final rule, the Commission is
revising its regulations to require Form No. 1-F filers to submit Form
No. 1-F in electronic format rather than filing an original and copies
of the form on paper, as is currently required. The Commission is
therefore revising Sec.  141.2(b)(1)(i) of the Commission's regulations
\47\ and Rule 2011 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure \48\ to
require Form No. 1-F filers to submit their reports using electronic
media as prescribed in Rule 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 18 CFR 141.2(b)(1)(i).
    \48\ 18 CFR 385.2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Information Collection Statement

    27. The collections of information for this final rule are being
submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA).\49\ The PRA requires each federal agency to seek
and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before
undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons
or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB's regulations
require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed
by agency rules.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \50\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The Commission solicited public comments regarding the accuracy
of the burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondents' burden. Specifically, the Commission asked that any
revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported
by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated. No
comments were filed raising any objection to the burden estimates
provided in the NOPR. Accordingly, we will use that same burden
estimate in this final rule.
    29. The revisions in this final rule update the filing process for
regulated entities required to file Commission Forms. The information
collected in Commission Forms is required to be submitted to the
Commission annually or quarterly under existing regulations and
reporting requirements adopted under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), and the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (PUHCA 2005). Commission
Forms would continue to be submitted to the Commission under these
existing regulations and reporting requirements. The new and amended
regulations and reporting requirements adopted in this final rule will
require regulated entities to furnish the information collected in
Commission Forms using tags in XBRL-Related Documents.\51\ The
specified financial and operational information already is required to
be collected and filed with the Commission pursuant to existing
periodic and annual report requirements. Under this final rule, the
information would need to be filed with the Commission using XBRL. The
Commission anticipates that the revisions to the filing process for
Commission Forms, once effective, would reduce ongoing regulatory
burdens.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ XBRL-Related Documents for purposes of this rulemaking
encompass documents, code, and any other file related to presenting
information in XBRL that are part of the filing submission.
    \52\ Burden is 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. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. The collections of information related to this final rule
include the following Commission Forms. FERC Form No. 1 (OMB Control
No. 1902-0021), FERC Form No. 2 (OMB Control No. 1902-0028), and FERC
Form No. 6 (OMB Control No. 1902-0022) prescribe the information that
major electric utilities, licensees, and others; major natural gas
companies; and oil pipeline companies, respectively, must disclose
annually about their finances and operations. FERC Form No. 1-F (OMB
Control No. 1902-0029) and FERC Form No. 2-A (OMB Control No. 1902-
0030) prescribe the information that nonmajor electric utilities and
licensees; and nonmajor natural gas companies, respectively, must
disclose annually about their finances and operations. FERC Form No. 3-
Q (OMB Control No. 1902-0205) prescribes information that electric
utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies must disclose quarterly
about their finances and operations. FERC Form No. 6-Q (OMB Control No.
1902-0206) prescribes information that oil pipeline companies must
disclose quarterly about their finances and operations. FERC Form No.
714 (OMB Control No. 1902-0140) prescribes information that certain
electric transmitting utilities operating balancing authority areas or
planning areas are required to file annually. FERC Form No. 60 (OMB
Control No. 1902-0215) prescribes information that centralized service
companies must disclose annually about their finances and operations.
    31. The following estimates of reporting burden are related only to
this

final rule and include the costs to comply with the Commission's
directives in this final rule. The compliance burden estimates for the
revisions to the filing process for Commission Forms are based on
several assumptions and unique assessments for each form. However, all
regulated entities required to submit Commission Forms would have to
map the reporting information to the Commission's standard XBRL
taxonomy and create a final submission file(s). We estimate that filers
would incur the following average burden hours:
     XBRL Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 3-Q electric, 2, 2-A, 3-Q natural
gas, 6, and 6-Q \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The internal burden hours for tagging Form Nos. 1 and 3-Q
electric are combined because the annual information reported in
Form No. 1 is a compilation of the information reported in the prior
three quarters in Form Nos. 3-Q electric in addition to the fourth
quarter. Similarly, we have combined the number of internal burden
hours for tagging the Form Nos. 2 and 3-Q natural gas and the Form
Nos. 6 and 6-Q, respectively, because the annual Form Nos. 2 and 6
are based on a compilation of the information reported in the prior
three quarters in Form Nos. 3-Q natural gas and 6-Q in addition to
the fourth quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] Burden hours to tag in XBRL:
    [ssquf] 100 hours to prepare and submit the first filing using
XBRL; and
    [ssquf] 14 hours for each subsequent filing in XBRL.
     Form No. 60
    [cir] Burden hours to tag in XBRL:
    [ssquf] 20 hours to prepare and submit the first filing made in
XBRL; and
    [ssquf] 3 hours for each subsequent filing.
     Form No. 714
    [cir] Burden hours to tag in XBRL:
    [ssquf] 15 hours to prepare and submit the first filing made in
XBRL; and
    [ssquf] 2 hours for each subsequent filing.
    32. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission's burden estimates are
for a one-time implementation of the transition to XBRL adopted in this
final rule, and an ongoing estimate for maintenance of the XBRL
reporting system. The following estimates of reporting burden are
related only to this final rule and anticipate the costs to filers for
compliance with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The average burden and cost per response is calculated
using the hourly wage figures described in detail below.
    \55\ Every figure in this column is rounded to the nearest
dollar.
    \56\ There is no change to the internal burden hours for filing
Form Nos. 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, and 6-Q because the burden
hours associated with these quarterly forms are included in the
burden hours calculated for filing Form Nos. 1, 2, and 6.
    \57\ This total number of responses does not include the
responses for Form Nos. 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, or 6-Q
because the burden hours for tagging Form Nos. 1, 2, and 6 include
the number of hours required to tag the quarterly responses. The
quarterly filings are generally a subset of the annual filings.

                                                                 RM19-12-000 Final Rule
                                                             One-Time Implementation Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual  number
                                  Number of     of  responses   Total  number    Average  burden &    Total annual  burden hours  &    Annual  cost per
         Requirement             respondents         per        of  responses    cost per  response             cost \55\              respondent  ($)
                                                 respondent                             \54\
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)..................  (3) * (4) = (5)..............  (5) / (1)
                                                                          (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form No. 1...................             207               1             207  100 hrs.; $6,931.....  20,700 hrs.; $1,434,717......  $6,931.
Form No.1-F..................               5               1               5  100 hrs.; $6,931.....  500 hrs.; $34,655............  $6,931.
Form No. 3-Q electric........             212               3             636  No Change \56\.......  No Change....................  No Change.
Form No. 2...................              92               1              92  100 hrs.; $6,931.....  9,200 hrs.; $637,652.........  $6,931.
Form No. 2-A.................              73               1              73  100 hrs.; $6,931.....  7,300 hrs.; $505,963.........  $6,931.
Form No. 3-Q natural gas.....             165               3             495  No Change............  No Change....................  No Change.
Form No. 6...................             244               1             244  100 hrs.; $6,931.....  24,400 hrs.; $1,691,164......  $6,931.
Form No. 6-Q.................             244               3             732  No Change............  No Change....................  No Change.
Form No. 60..................              39               1              39  20 hrs.; $1,386.20...  780 hrs.; $54,062............  $1,386.20.
Form No. 714.................             176               1             176  15 hrs.; $1,039.65...  2,640 hrs.; $182,977.........  $1,039.65.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for Implementation   ..............  ..............        \57\ 836  .....................  65,520 hrs.; $4,541,190......  ...................
     Burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                 RM19-12-000 Final Rule
                                                        Annual Ongoing System Maintenance Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual  number
                                  Number of     of  responses   Total  number    Average  burden &    Total annual  burden hours  &    Annual  cost per
         Requirement             respondents         per        of  responses    cost per  response             cost \59\              respondent  ($)
                                                 respondent                             \58\
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)..................  (3) * (4) = (5)..............  (5) / (1)
                                                                          (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form No. 1...................             207               1             207  14 hrs.; $970.34.....  2,898 hrs.; $200,860.........  $970.34.
Form No.1-F..................               5               1               5  14 hrs.; $970.34.....  70 hrs.; $4,852..............  $970.34.
Form No. 3-Q electric........             212               3             636  No Change............  No Change....................  No Change.
Form No. 2...................              92               1              92  14 hrs.; $970.34.....  1,288 hrs.; $89,271..........  $970.34.
Form No. 2-A.................              73               1              73  14 hrs.; $970.34.....  1,022 hrs.; $70,835..........  $970.34.
Form No. 3-Q natural gas.....             165               3             495  No Change............  No Change....................  No Change.
Form No. 6...................             244               1             244  14 hrs.; $970.34.....  3,416 hrs.; $236,763.........  $970.34.
Form No. 6-Q.................             244               3             732  No Change............  No Change....................  No Change.
Form No. 60..................              39               1              39  3 hrs.; $207.93......  117 hrs.; $8,109.............  $207.93.

Form No. 714.................             176               1             176  2 hrs.; $138.62......  352 hrs.; $24,397............  $138.62.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total for Ongoing Burden.  ..............  ..............        \60\ 836  .....................  9,163 hrs.; $635,087.........  ...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's estimates for the hourly wage figure (as related
to the implementation and ongoing burden estimate) are based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics data (for the Utilities sector, at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm, plus benefits information at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The salaries (plus
benefits) for the eight occupational categories are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The average burden and cost per response is calculated
using the hourly wage figures described in detail below.
    \59\ Every figure in this column is rounded to the nearest
dollar.
    \60\ This total number of responses does not include the
responses for Form Nos. 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, or 6-Q
because the burden hours for tagging Form Nos. 1, 2, and 6 include
the number of hours required to tag the quarterly responses. The
quarterly filings are generally a subset of the annual filings.

 Management (Occupation Code: 11-0000): $94.28/hour
 Information Security Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-1122):
$60.90/hour
 Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): $143.68/hour
 Office and Administrative Support: $41.34/hour
 Computer and Information Systems Manager (Occupation Code: 11-
3021): $96.51
 Management Analyst (Occupation Code: 13-1111): $63.32/hour
 Computer and Information Systems Analyst (Occupation Code: 15-
1120): $66.47/hour
 Accountants and Auditors (Occupation Code: 13-2011): $56.59/
hour

    The average hourly cost for all eight of these categories is
calculated assuming the following weights in correspondence to effort
applied by each respective occupation:

 Management (Occupation Code: 11-0000): 5%
 Information Security Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-1122): 5%
 Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): 5%
 Office and Administrative Support: 10%
 Computer and Information Systems Manager (Occupation Code: 11-
3021): 10%
 Management Analyst (Occupation Code: 13-1111): 5%
 Computer and Information Systems Analyst (Occupation Code: 15-
1120): 35%
 Accountants and Auditors (Occupation Code: 13-2011): 25%

    Overall, the average hourly cost uses the following calculation
with all seven occupations and their respective weights included:

[($94.28/hour * 0.05) + ($60.90/hour * 0.05) + ($143.68/hour * 0.05) +
($41.34/hour * 0.1) + ($96.51/hour * 0.1) + ($63.32/hour * 0.05) +
($66.47/hour * 0.35) + ($56.59/hour * 0.25)] / 8 = $69.31.

    The number of responses related to both the implementation and
ongoing burden is 836 responses.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ This total number of responses does not include the
responses for Form Nos. 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, or 6-Q
because the burden hours for tagging Form Nos. 1, 2, and 6 include
the number of hours required to tag the quarterly responses. The
quarterly filings are generally a subset of the annual filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The implementation burden will be 65,520 hours for Year 1.
    The ongoing burden in Years 2 and 3 will be 9,163 hours per year.
    The responses and burden for Years 1-3 for both the implementation
and ongoing burden are as follows:

836 responses/year;
[(65,520 hours for Year 1) + (9,163 hours for Year 2) + (9,163 hours
for Year 3)] / 3 years = 27,949 hours/year (annual average for Years 1-
3).

    33. Out-of-pocket expenses: We estimate that filers would incur the
following out-of-pocket expenses for software, consulting, or filing
agent services in the Years 2 and 3 (following the first year of
implementation):
     XBRL Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 3-Q electric, 2, 2-A, 3-Q natural
gas, 6, and 6-Q:
    [cir] Out-of-pocket cost for software and filing agent services:
$4,912 for each filing.
    [cir] Total out-of-pocket cost for software and filing agent
services per year: (621 respondents) * ($4,912 for each filing) =
$3,050,352.
     Form No. 60:
    [cir] Out-of-pocket cost for software and filing agent services:
$982 for each filing.
    [cir] Total out-of-pocket cost for software and filing agent
services per year: (39 respondents) * ($982 for each filing) = $38,298.
     Form No. 714
    [cir] Out-of-pocket cost for software and filing agent services:
$737 for each filing.
    [cir] Total out-of-pocket cost for software and filing agent
services per year: (176 respondents) * ($737 for each filing) =
$129,712.
    34. Based on the number of filers we expect to be subject to the
requirements, the number of filings that we expect those filers to make
and the burden hours and out-of-pocket cost estimates described, we
estimate that in total for all filers, the average yearly burden of the
requirements over the first three years would be 27,949 internal hours
per year and $2,145,575 in out-of-pocket expenses per year. This would
be incurred by an average of 836 filers for an average yearly burden
per filer of 33.4 internal hours and $2,566 in out-of-pocket expenses
over Years 1-3.
    Titles: Form No. 1 (Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities,
Licensees and Others); Form No. 1-F (Annual Report for Nonmajor Public
Utilities and Licensees); Form No. 3-Q electric (Quarterly Financial
Report of Electric Utilities, Licensees and Natural Gas Companies);
Form No. 2 (Annual Report for Major Natural Gas Companies); Form No. 2-
A (Annual Report for Non-major Natural Gas Companies); Form No. 3-Q gas
(Quarterly Financial Report of Electric Utilities, Licensees and
Natural Gas Companies); Form No. 6 (Annual Report of Oil Pipeline
Companies); Form No. 6-Q (Quarterly Financial

Report of Oil Pipeline Companies); Form No. 60 (Annual Reports of
Centralized Service Companies); Form No. 714 (Annual Electric Balancing
Authority Area and Planning Area Report).
    Action: Revision of Currently Approved Collections of Information.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0021 (Form No. 1), 1902-0029 (Form No. 1-F),
1902-0028 (Form No. 2), 1902-0030 (Form No. 2-A), 1902-0205 (Form No.
3-Q), 1902-0022 (Form No. 6), 1902-0206 (Form No. 6-Q), 1902-0215 (Form
No. 60), and 1902-0140 (Form No. 714).
    Respondents: Public utilities, licensees, interstate natural gas
companies, oil pipeline companies, centralized service companies,
Balancing Authorities, or other for profit and/or not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: Annually or quarterly.
    Necessity of the Information: The Commission requires that the
information collected in Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 3-Q electric, 2, 2-A, 3-Q
natural gas, 6, 6-Q, 60, and 714 be submitted in an updated electronic
format that is compatible with current technology and ensures access to
the information required to be collected.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the reporting
requirements related to Commission Forms and made a determination that
revising the filing process for Commission Forms will ensure the
Commission has the necessary data to carry out its statutory mandates,
while reducing unnecessary burden on industry. 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.
    35. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. Please send comments
concerning the collection of information and the associated burden
estimates to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments to OMB
should be submitted by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
submitted to OMB should include Docket Number RM19-2-000 and any
related information collection and its respective OMB Control Number
[Form No. 1 (1902-0021), Form No. 1-F (1902-0029), Form No. 2 (1902-
0028), Form No. 2-A (1902-0030), Form No. 3-Q (1902-0205), Form No. 6
(1902-0022), Form No. 6-Q (1902-0206), Form No. 60 (1902-0215), and
Form No. 714 (1902-0140)].

V. Environmental Analysis

    36. 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.\62\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\63\ The actions taken in this final rule fall within the
categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules
regarding information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\64\
Accordingly, no environmental assessment is necessary and none has been
prepared for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \63\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \64\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) and 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    37. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \65\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to perform this sort of analysis if the
proposed activities within the final rule would not have such an
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Approximately 212 electric utility, licensees, and other
companies are required to file the Form Nos. 1 and 3-Q electric, or
Form No. 1-F, and therefore are subject to the requirements adopted by
this rule. Of those filers, the Commission estimates approximately 40
will be small as defined by SBA regulations.\66\ Approximately 244 oil
pipeline companies are required to file the Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q, and
therefore are subject to the requirements of this final rule. Of those
oil pipeline filers, the Commission estimates approximately 23 percent
will be small, as currently defined for ``All Other Pipeline
Transportation'' companies (NAICS code 486990) as a company that, in
combination with its affiliates, has total annual receipts of $37.5
million or less. Approximately 165 interstate natural gas pipelines are
required to file the Form Nos. 2 and 3-Q natural gas, or Form No. 2-A,
and therefore are subject to the requirements adopted by this rule.
Most of the natural gas pipelines regulated by the Commission do not
fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity, which is currently
defined for natural gas pipelines (NAICS code 486210) as a company
that, in combination with its affiliates, has total annual receipts of
$27.5 million or less. For the year 2018, eleven companies not
affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues in combination
with its affiliates of $27.5 million or less and therefore could be
considered a small entity under the RFA. This represents about seven
percent of the total potential respondents that may have a significant
burden imposed on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The small business size standards are provided in 13 CFR
121.201. In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA uses the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Approximately 39 holding companies currently file Form No. 60.
Commission staff estimates that these companies are not likely to fall
within the RFA's definition of small \67\ because holding companies of
public utilities or natural gas pipelines are generally not small
businesses. Finally, there are approximately 176 balancing authorities
(NAICS code 221121) that are required to file Form No. 714. Of those
balancing authorities, 33 percent (or approximately 58) are estimated
to fall within the RFA's definition of small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (citing to section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15
U.S.C. 632. The Small Business Size Standards component of the NAICS
defines, for example, a small electric utility as one that,
including its affiliates, is primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and
whose quantity of employees falls under a certain threshold
dependent on the type of utility and its applicable NAICS code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the revised requirements
set forth in this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

VII. Document Availability

    41. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)

and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    42. From FERC's Home Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    43. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    44. These regulations are effective August 26, 2019. Pursuant to
the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a
``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 141

    Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 385

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

    By the Commission.

    Issued: June 20, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 141
and 385 of chapter I, title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows.

PART 141--STATEMENTS and REPORTS (SCHEDULES)

0
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z; 16 U.S.C. 791a-
828c, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.2.

0
2. Amend Sec.  141.2 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  141.2  FERC Form No. 1-F, Annual report for Nonmajor public
utilities and licensees.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Generally. Each Nonmajor and each Nonoperating (formerly
designated as Nonmajor) public utility and licensee as defined in Part
101 of this chapter, shall prepare and file with the Commission FERC
Form No. 1-F as prescribed in Sec.  385.2011 of this chapter and as
indicated in the General Instructions set out in this form, and must be
properly completed and verified. Filing on electronic media pursuant to
Sec.  385.2011 of this chapter is required.
* * * * *

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701;
42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App.
U.S.C. 1-85 (1988); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (1990); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note
(2015).

0
4. Amend Sec.  385.2011 by adding paragraph (a)(8) and revising
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  385.2011  Procedures for filing on electronic media (Rule 2011).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (8) FERC Form No. 1-F, Annual report for Nonmajor public utilities
and licensees.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) With the exception of the FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 6, 60,
and 714, the electronic media must be accompanied by the traditional
prescribed number of paper copies.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-13588 Filed 6-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81894-81897]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1325; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-250-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The existing
AD currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to
incorporate new structural inspection requirements. Since we issued
that AD, during full scale fatigue testing, cracks were found in
certain structural components of the airplane. Analysis of these cracks
resulted in manufacturer modifications of the ALS of Embraer ERJ 170
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR), which include new inspections
tasks, or modification of the current tasks and their respective
thresholds and intervals. This proposed AD would revise the maintenance
program to incorporate new or revised structural inspection
requirements. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 13,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-
12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos-SP-BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-
5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.flyembraer.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The

street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2768; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1325;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-250-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 14, 2010, we issued AD 2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR
30284, June 1, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR 30284,
June 1, 2010): The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o
Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2011-04-01, dated May 5, 2011
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During the airplane full scale fatigue test, cracks were found
in some structural components of the airplane. Analysis of these
cracks resulted in modifications on the Airworthiness Limitation
Section (ALS) of Embraer ERJ 170 Maintenance Review Board Report
(MRBR), to include new inspections tasks or modification of existing
ones and its respective thresholds and intervals.
    Failure to inspect these structural components, according to the
new/revised tasks, thresholds and intervals, could prevent a timely
detection of fatigue cracking. These cracks, if not properly
addressed, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.
* * * * *
    The required action is revising the maintenance program to
incorporate new structural inspection requirements. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspection
(ALI)--Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations of the
EMBRAER 170 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) MRB-1621, Appendix
A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated November 11,
2010; and Temporary Revision (TR) 7-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part
2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix
A, Airworthiness Limitations of the EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621, Revision
7, dated November 11, 2010. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 166 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318
(75 FR 30284, June 1, 2010) and retained in this proposed AD take about
1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required
actions is $85 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $14,110, or $85 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR
30284, June 1, 2010) and adding the following new AD:

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2011-1325; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-250-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 13, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR
30284, June 1, 2010)

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU
airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, and -200 STD
airplanes; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired
in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be
able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA
has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC) 25.1529-1A.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage;
57: Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracks found in certain structural
components during full scale fatigue testing of the airplane.
Analysis of these cracks resulted in manufacturer modifications of
the ALS of Embraer ERJ 170 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR),
which include new inspections tasks, or modification of the current
tasks and their respective thresholds and intervals. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking which could result in
the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR
30284, June 1, 2010):

(g) Actions

    Within 90 days after July 6, 2010 (the effective date of AD
2010-11-13, Amendment 39-16318 (75 FR 30284, June 1, 2010)), revise
the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate the inspection tasks
identified in the EMBRAER temporary revisions (TRs) to Appendix A--
Part 2 of the EMBRAER 170 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR)
MRB-1621 listed in table 1 of this AD. The initial compliance times
for the tasks start from the applicable threshold times specified in
the TRs for the corresponding tasks of the maintenance review board
report or within 500 flight cycles after July 6, 2010, whichever
occurs later. For certain tasks, the compliance times depend on the
pre-modification and post-modification status of the actions
specified in the associated service bulletin, as specified in the
``Applicability'' column of the applicable TRs identified in table 1
of this AD. The threshold values stated in the TRs referenced in
table 1 of this AD are total flight cycles on the airplane since the
date of issuance of the original Brazilian airworthiness certificate
or the date of issuance of the original Brazilian export certificate
of airworthiness.

                                            Table 1--Inspection Tasks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                TR                         Date                  Subject                     Task No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TR 4-1...........................  October 15, 2007...  Ram air turbine           53-10-012-0002
                                                         compartment, support     53-10-012-0003
                                                         structure and cutout     53-10-021-0005
                                                         structure-internal.      53-10-021-0006
                                                        Nose landing gear wheel
                                                         well metallic structure.
TR 4-3...........................  December 6, 2007...  Wing stub spar 3 side     57-01-012-001
                                                         fitting--internal.       57-10-010-0002
                                                        Wing upper skin panels--  57-50-002-0002
                                                         external.                57-50-005-0003
                                                        Fixed trailing edge       57-50-005-0004
                                                         lower skin panel--
                                                         external.
                                                        Fixed trailing edge rib
                                                         4A--external.
                                                        Fixed trailing edge rib
                                                         6--internal.
TR 4-4...........................  January 18, 2008...  Wing stub main box        57-01-002-003
                                                         lower--internal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) No Alternative Inspections for Paragraph (g) of This AD

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless
the inspection or inspection interval is approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
or the Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC)
(or its delegated agent); or unless the inspection or interval is
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

(i) Revision of the Maintenance Program

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance program to incorporate the new or revised tasks
specified in Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)--
Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations of the EMBRAER
170 MRBR MRB-1621, Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010; and Temporary Revision (TR) 7-
1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation
Inspection (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness
Limitations of the EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated
November 11, 2010, with the initial compliance times and intervals
stated in these documents. The initial compliance times for the
tasks start from the date of issuance of the original Brazilian
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
Brazilian export certificate of airworthiness of the applicable
airplane at the applicable time specified in the tasks, or within
600 flight cycles after revising the maintenance program, whichever
occurs later. For certain tasks, the compliance times depend on the
pre-modification and post-modification status of the actions
specified in the associated service bulletin, as specified in the
``Applicability'' column of Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation
Inspection (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness
Limitations of the EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621, Appendix A, Part 2,
Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010; and
Temporary Revision (TR) 7-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2--
Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix
A, Airworthiness Limitations of the EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621,
Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010. For tasks identified in the
documents identified in this paragraph, doing the initial task
required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this AD for that task.

(j) No Alternative Actions Intervals, and/or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/
or CDCCLs may be used other than those specified in Part 2--
Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix
A, Airworthiness Limitations of the EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621,
Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 7, dated
November 11, 2010; and Temporary Revision (TR) 7-1, dated February
11, 2011, to Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspection (ALI)--
Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations of the EMBRAER
170 MRBR MRB-1621, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010, unless the
actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Cindy Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2768; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2011-04-01,
dated May 5, 2011; and Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspection
(ALI)--Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations of the
EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621, Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness
Limitations, Revision 7, dated November 11, 2010; and Temporary
Revision (TR) 7-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2--Airworthiness
Limitation Inspection (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix A,
Airworthiness Limitations of the EMBRAER 170 MRBR MRB-1621, Revision
7, dated November 11, 2010; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 19, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33279 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P