[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25061-25062]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11593]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2; SEC File No. 270-298, OMB Control
No. 3235-0337

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ac2-2 (17 CFR
240.17Ac2-2) and Form TA-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 require registered transfer agents to
file an annual report of their business activities with the Commission.
These reporting requirements are designed to ensure that all registered
transfer agents are providing the Commission with sufficient
information on an annual basis about the transfer agent community and
to permit the Commission to effectively monitor business activities of
transfer agents.
    The amount of time needed to comply with the requirements of
amended Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 varies. Of the total 373 registered
transfer agents, approximately 9.2% (or 34 registrants) would be
required to complete only questions 1 through 3 and the signature
section of amended Form TA-2, which the Commission estimates would take
each registrant approximately 30 minutes, for a total burden of 17
hours (34 x .5 hours). Approximately 26.5% of registrants (or 99
registrants) would be required to answer questions 1 through 5,
question 11 and the signature section, which the Commission estimates
would take approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes, for a total of 148.5
hours (99 x 1.5 hours). Approximately 64.2% of the registrants (or 239
registrants) would be required to complete the entire Form TA-2, which
the Commission estimates would take approximately 6 hours, for a total
of 1,434 hours (239 x 6 hours). The aggregate annual burden on all 373
registered transfer agents is thus approximately 1,599.5 hours (17
hours + 148.5 hours + 1,434 hours) and the average annual burden per
transfer agent is approximately 3.8 hours (1,434 / 373).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: May 24, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11593 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


While the No-Conduit Rule would prohibit such disclosures to the
employees shared with the affiliated gathering facilities or intrastate
pipeline, we do not find that a broad exemption for communication of
the non-public, operational information is warranted. To the extent
that interstate natural gas pipelines share operational employees with
LDCs or other affiliates, which makes compliance with the No-Conduit
Rule difficult, the interstate natural gas pipelines can seek a waiver
of this Final Rule's No-Conduit Rule.

III. Questions Posed by the Commission

A. Generator to Electric Transmission Operator Communications

1. NOPR
    100. In the NOPR, the Commission recognized that although the
proposal applies only to communications between interstate natural gas
pipelines and electric transmission operators, natural gas-fired
generators may have relevant information regarding their own
capabilities to acquire natural gas (or other fuels) not available to
the interstate natural gas pipeline serving the generator.\133\
Therefore, the Commission sought comments on whether additional
regulations were needed to require a generator to inform its electric
transmission operator of the possibility its natural gas service may be
disrupted. As an example, the Commission asked whether a generator
should be required, at the request of the electric transmission
operator, to provide its electric transmission operator with
information pertaining to any communications received from an
interstate natural gas pipeline regarding potential failures by the
generator to conform to flow rates or nominations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,699 at P 25 (cross-
referenced at 144 FERC ] 61,043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    101. EEI, EPSA, MISO, MMWEC, NEPGA, NRECA, and PG&E believe that
additional regulations requiring information sharing between generators
and electric transmission operators are not necessary.\134\ On the
other hand, the IRC, ISO-NE., NYISO, and NYPSC support additional
regulations requiring generators to share information regarding their
fuel status with an electric transmission operator.\135\ Likewise, in
the absence of cooperative information sharing, APPA, MMWEC, NRECA and
the NE Gas Industry believe that additional regulations should be
implemented to ensure information sharing.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ EEI Comments at 5-6; EPSA Comments at 4-5; MISO Comments
at 4; MMWEC Comments at 4; NEPGA Comments at 4-5; NRECA Comments at
8; PG&E Comments at 5.
    \135\ IRC Comments at 4, ISO-NE Comments at 8-9, NYISO Comments
at 2; NYPSC Comments at 5. NYPSC states that if the Commission
requires a generator to provide its electric transmission operator
communications received from a natural gas pipeline, the NYPSC would
also include communications from the LDC. NYPSC at 4-5.
    \136\ APPA Comments at 7, NRECA Comments at 8, NE Gas Industry
Comments at 9; MMWEC at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    102. Along the same lines, TVA and Ohio PUC believe that electric
transmission operators should be allowed to require any critical
information that may impact electric reliability.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ TVA Comments at 3; Ohio PUC Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. In support of such a requirement, NYISO states that, while it
expects that its generators will react to fuel availability concerns by
derating their capacity when circumstances dictate, additional detailed
information, particularly during cold weather events, is
desirable.\138\ Similarly, ISO-NE states that although it often learns
about gas interruptions only after a generator is offline, it
understands that information regarding potential interruptions due to
insufficient gas supply is available much earlier.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ NYISO Comments at 4.
    \139\ ISO-NE Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    104. CAISO and EEI point out that some electric transmission
operators already have the ability to work with their stakeholders and/
or to file tariff changes that may be necessary to require generators
to provide this information.\140\ CAISO, EEI, EPSA, IRC, MISO, and
NEPGA also point out that some electric transmission operators already
require generators to share this type of information.\141\ EEI, for
example, states that PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (PJM) already requires
capacity resources to report fuel data to enable PJM to assist the
market in providing solutions in emergency situations.\142\ NEPGA
stated that, under the ISO-NE tariff, generators have an existing
obligation to report to ISO-NE when they are unable to operate due to
pipeline disruptions or otherwise.\143\ Similarly, MISO states that in
its markets, generator owners and/or operators are required to notify
MISO of anticipated fuel supply disruptions.\144\ CAISO states that its
tariff currently requires generators to inform it of any change or
potential change in the generators status, including any fuel supply
concerns of which the generator is aware.\145\ EPSA asserts that each
transmission operator already has rules regarding communication between
the transmission operator and generators which obligates generators to
provide the type of information discussed in the NOPR.\146\ IRC notes
that providing electric transmission operators with timely information
regarding a

generator's fuel status is consistent with existing reliability
standards.\147\ CAISO states that, if the Commission adopts a
regulation applicable to generators, it should apply that requirement
across all fuel types.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ EEI Comments at 5-6.
    \141\ EEI Comments at 5-6, EPSA Comments at 4; NEPGA Comments at
4-5, MISO Comments at 4; CAISO Comments at 4.
    \142\ EEI Comments at 5 (citing PJM Manual 13, Emergency
Operations, Section 6.4 Fuel Limitation Reporting. Effective date
June 1, 2013).
    \143\ NEPGA Comments at 4.
    \144\ MISO Comments at 4.
    \145\ CAISO Comments at 4.
    \146\ EPSA Comments at 5.
    \147\ IRC Comments at n.7 (citing reliability standards EOP-001,
EOP-004, IRO-010, and TOP-002).
    \148\ CAISO Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    105. Based upon the comments received, the Commission finds that it
is unnecessary in this proceeding to require a generator to notify its
electric transmission operator that its natural gas service may be
disrupted. However, to the extent they do not already exist, electric
transmission operators may file tariff provisions pursuant to FPA
section 205 to require generators to notify electric transmission
operators of information they require to maintain reliable service,
such as anticipated fuel supply disruptions. As noted by several
commenters, some electric transmission operator tariffs require
generators to notify electric transmission operators of anticipated
fuel supply disruptions. While some entities would prefer that the
Commission adopt generic regulations requiring the provision of this
type of information from a generator to an electric transmission
operator, those entities do not explain why current tariff requirements
are, or new tariff requirements would be, inadequate. Consistent with
the Final Rule, this approach would give electric transmission
operators significant flexibility to determine what information they
require from generators to promote reliable service on their systems.

B. Three-Way Communication of Non-Public Operational Information

1. NOPR
    106. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comments on whether the
proposed rule should require transmission operators to include the
customer as part of a three-way communication to the extent the non-
public, operational information exchanged between transmission
operators involves customer-specific information (such as information
about individual generators) and if so, how such a requirement could be
implemented.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,699 at P 25 (cross-
referenced at 144 FERC ] 61,043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    107. Commenters were split on this issue, with slightly more
commenters opposed to requiring three-way communications when customer-
specific information is shared. AEP, APPA, Duke, EEI, EPSA, MMWEC,
NERC, NEGPA, and NRECA support requiring three-way communications,\150\
while CAISO, INGAA, ISO-NE, IRC, MISO, NE Gas Industry, NYISO, NYTO,
PG&E and Washington Gas oppose such a requirement.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ AEP Comments at 5-6; APPA Comments at 6-7; Duke Comments
at 4; EEI Comments at 6; EPSA Comments at 6-7; MMWEC Comments at 5;
NERC Comments at 8; NEGPA Comments at 5-6; NRECA Comments at 5-6.
    \151\ CAISO Comments at 4-5; INGAA Comments at 5; ISO-NE
Comments at 9-10; IRC Comments at 5; MISO Comments at 4-5; NE
Natural Gas Industry Comments at 9; NYISO Comments at 4; NYTO
Comments at 8-9; PG&E Comments at 5-6, and Washington Gas Comments
at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    108. Many of the commenters that support such a requirement contend
that including the relevant customer or generator would prove more
efficient, as well as ensure the accuracy of the communications. NEPGA
contends that generator access to these communications is vital to
allow the generator to guarantee that the transmission operator does
not take dispatch actions based on incomplete information held by
either the interstate natural gas pipeline or electric transmission
operator.\152\ EEI, for example, notes that a public utility would not
know if a generator has back-up supply or other fuel arrangements
without contacting the generator.\153\ NRECA states that involving
individual customers could prove more efficient than excluding them
from the sharing of their information because individual customers and
generators can have information relevant to operations that
transmission operators do not have or do not have available as early in
time as the individual customers and generators.\154\ Duke and EPSA
believe that, in the event transmission operators cannot contact the
customer prior to sharing customer-specific information, the
transmission operators must inform the generator of what information
was shared so that the generator can respond to or correct any
misinformation.\155\ AEP argues that a stakeholder's non-public data
should only be shared with the explicit consent of that
stakeholder.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ NEPGA Comments at 5.
    \153\ EEI Comments at 6.
    \154\ NRECA Comments at 6.
    \155\ Duke Comments at 4; EPSA Comments at 6-7.
    \156\ AEP Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    109. Many of the commenters that oppose such a requirement maintain
that requiring three-way communications would prove impracticable and
hamper reliability. The IRC and ISO-NE express concern that including
generators in the discussions with pipelines and electric transmission
operators would be inappropriate and difficult to implement for real-
time operations when decisions need to be made quickly.\157\ The IRC
and ISO-NE also state that gas and electric system contingencies
usually affect multiple generators receiving gas from one interstate
natural gas pipeline that are competitors with each other. They argue
that it may not be practical in real-time to schedule separate
discussions with each generator and to the extent discussions involved
multiple generators, it would be inappropriate to discuss confidential,
generator-specific information with other generators.\158\ INGAA and
the NE Gas Industry believe that such a requirement would serve to
limit conversations and have a chilling effect on communications the
Commission intends to foster through the proposed regulations.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ ISO-NE Comments at 9; IRC Comments at 5.
    \158\ ISO-NE Comments at 9-10; IRC Comments at 5.
    \159\ INGAA Comments at 5; NE Gas Industry Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. Likewise, PG&E states that its gas transmission operators
already communicate daily with CAISO and incorporating every individual
customer into these calls would be logistically difficult and hamper
effective communications with CAISO.\160\ PG&E also asserts that such
communications may be unnecessary, as their gas transmission operators
already communicate daily with their generation customers and as a
result, those customers are frequently informed regarding relevant non-
public, operational information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ PG&E Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. The NYTOs are also concerned that such three-way conversations
may unnecessarily result in the disclosure of market sensitive
information to generators or fuel managers.\161\ Similarly, Washington
Gas argues that the NOPR has not made a convincing case for giving one
class of shipper preferential access to non-public pipeline information
in a three-way meeting.\162\ Washington Gas argues that if a need
exists for three-party communications, the pipeline could arrange ``all
shipper'' meetings, which have been used for the release of critical
information since open access and are often supplemented by handouts

simultaneously posted on electronic bulletin boards (EBBs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ NYTOs Comments at 9.
    \162\ Washington Gas Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. Several commenters, including MISO, NYISO, NYTO, INGAA and NE
Gas Industry, oppose a mandatory three-way communication rule but
acknowledge the value of three-way communication in some situations and
thus, support a permissive approach to three-way communications.\163\
For instance, the NYISO states that it may be appropriate to have
three-way communications regarding the availability of gas transmission
capability, particularly if the generator's dispatch is critical to
reliability, but stresses that transmission operators need flexibility
in deciding whether to include generators in different
circumstances.\164\ The NYTOs believe that electric generators and
their fuel managers are the sole source of reliable information about
many fuel-related concerns and should be permitted to participate in
three-way communications involving those concerns, especially during
emergency conditions. However, the NYTOs state there is the potential
for misuse of non-public, operational information to the extent it is
shared as part of three-way communications since generators and their
fuel managers are merchant entities in New York. Thus, the NYTOs
maintain that the NOPR's proposed No-Conduit Rule should be extended to
the generator and fuel manager in those instances and the Commission
should clarify that the generator and fuel manager may not enter into
unrelated transactions based upon such information.\165\ NE Gas
Industry argues that generators should be included in broader industry
communications in the event of an emergency.\166\ MISO suggests that,
rather than require mandatory three-way communications, necessary
information could be shared through alternate means such as through a
designated representative or EBB.\167\ WGL suggests that rather than
engage in three-way communications, all shippers could be given the
opportunity to receive critical information simultaneously either by
phone, webcast or in person.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ NYISO Comments at 4; NE Gas Industry Comments at 9; NYTOs
at 9; and INGAA Comments at 5.
    \164\ NYISO Comments at 4.
    \165\ NYTO Comments at 8-9.
    \166\ NE Gas Industry Comments at 9.
    \167\ MISO Comments at 5.
    \168\ WGL Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    113. Regarding implementation of a requirement for three-way
communications, commenters suggest various approaches. EEI suggests
that public utilities and pipelines should discuss with stakeholders
the best way to enact such a requirement in the various regions.\169\
TVA suggests that NERC and NAESB standards could serve as
implementation mechanisms with allowances for regional differences
through organized market rules.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ EEI Comments at 6.
    \170\ TVA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. AEP recommends the use of three-party confidentiality
agreements that include the electric generators, interstate natural gas
pipelines and electric transmission operators or, in lieu of a
confidentiality agreement, commercially sensitive data should be
handled in a manner in which the generator is the central point of
contact, i.e., only the generator would have ``all of the information
regarding commercially sensitive fuel supply options, gas
transportation contracts, power obligations, etc.'' \171\ NRECA
suggests that either electric transmission operators have in place a
non-disclosure agreement, through which customers could pre-approve
timely sharing of their non-public information provided they are made
aware of the disclosure within a reasonable period of time, or the
adoption of notice provisions by electric transmission operators and
pipelines, ``whereby disclosure will not be made until the customer is
provided with notice and opportunity to oppose the release (e.g., 5
days).'' \172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ AEP Comments at 6.
    \172\ NRECA Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    115. The Commission will not require three-way communications when
customer-specific information is shared between electric transmission
owners and interstate natural gas pipelines. The Commission is
concerned that implementing such a requirement would prove
impracticable and could discourage interstate natural gas pipelines and
electric transmission operators from sharing valuable information.
Moreover, the inclusion of the No-Conduit Rule in this Final Rule
should ensure that any customer-specific information shared between
transmission operators is not disclosed to other market participants,
addressing many of the concerns of those commenters supporting a three-
way communication requirement.
    116. The Commission is also concerned that three-way communications
conducted with one customer could result in the electric transmission
operator or interstate natural gas pipeline inadvertently sharing non-
public, operational information with only that customer. Selectively
sharing information with a limited class of shippers or market
participants without a rational justification could be characterized as
permitting a public utility or interstate natural gas pipeline to make
or grant an undue preference. Further, as noted in the NOPR,
transmission operators may always discuss customer-specific information
with the relevant customer and transmission operators but cannot
deviate from the terms of their tariffs and cannot operate in an unduly
discriminatory manner.

C. Examples of Non-Public Operational Information

1. NOPR
    117. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that the term ``non-public,
operational information'' is information that is not publicly posted,
yet helps transmission operators to operate and maintain either a
reliable pipeline system or a reliable electric transmission
system.\173\ The Commission noted that non-public, operational
information may also include generator, pipeline, or transmission-
specific information. The Commission further stated that, in using the
term ``non-public, operational information,'' the Commission intended
that transmission operators would be permitted to share information
dealing with actual, anticipated, or potential effects on the ability
to provide electric and gas service based on the respective operator's
experience and understanding of the operational capability and customer
demands on their respective systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,699 at P 23 (cross-
referenced at144 FERC ] 61,043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. The Commission provided examples of the types of information
that non-public, operational information could include, but emphasized
in the NOPR that the Commission was not proposing a specific list of
information that can be shared in order to provide flexibility to
individual operators. Examples of such information included, but were
not limited to, the following types of information:
     Real-time and anticipated system conditions that have or
are anticipated to impact natural gas transportation by changing near
term gas flows;
     Actual and anticipated electric service interruptions to
gas compressor locations;
     Verification that there is sufficient pipeline operational
capability available at a specific delivery point to change the
quantity of natural gas delivered to the generator as identified by the
electric transmission operator;

     Actual and projected gas transportation restrictions to
electric generators;
     Real-time actual flow and operational capacity data at all
receipt and delivery points; real-time pipeline pressure at all receipt
and delivery points;
     Nominated and scheduled quantities of shippers who are or
who supply gas-fired generators; and,
     scheduled dates and duration of generator, pipeline, and
transmission maintenance and planned outages.
    The Commission sought comment on the specific categories of
information identified.
2. Comments
    119. EEI, NERC, NYISO, CAISO, APPA and IRC support the examples of
non-public, operational information provided in the NOPR.\174\ IRC
states that, as a general matter, the more information that interstate
natural gas pipelines can provide the electric transmission operator
regarding pipeline system conditions, the better position the electric
transmission operator will be in to use that information to address
system contingencies.\175\ EEI states that the NOPR's general
definition and examples of non-public, operational information provide
sufficient guidance to public utilities and interstate natural gas
pipelines as to the types of information that the Commission
contemplates could be conveyed under the proposal.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ EEI Comments at 4-5; NERC Comments at 7; NYISO Comments at
3; CAISO Comments at 3; APPA Comments at 5; and IRC Comments at 3.
    \175\ IRC Comments at 3.
    \176\ EEI Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. Some commenters provide comments specific to the examples
included in the NOPR and describe in detail the importance of
particular categories of information for promoting reliable service or
operational planning.\177\ Other commenters express concern with some
of the examples of non-public, operational information provided in the
NOPR.\178\ Some commenters also recommend that other types of
information be shared in addition to the examples listed in the
NOPR.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See e.g., ISO-NE Comments at 5-8; ITC Comments at 4; NERC
Comments at 7; NYISO Comments at 3; ISO-NE Comments at 4-8;
Washington Gas Comments at; and NGSA Comments at 6-7.
    \178\ See, e.g., NE Gas Industry Comments at 8; NGSA Comments at
7.
    \179\ ITC Comments at 4; NYISO Comments at 3-4; NYPSC Comments
at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    121. A few commenters request clarification regarding the list of
examples in the NOPR, or propose modifications to the list of examples
in the NOPR.\180\ The NYTOs, for example, request that the Commission
clarify that RTOs and ISOs are permitted to share unit-specific,
generator dispatch schedules with interstate natural gas pipelines (and
LDCs) for the purpose of promoting reliable service or operational
planning, subject to the No-Conduit Rule.\181\ In addition, INGAA seeks
further clarification regarding what non-public, operational
information regarding future ``operational planning'' transmission
operators may share under the proposed rule.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ NERC Comments at 7; NYPSC Comments at 4.
    \181\ NYTOs Comments at 7-8.
    \182\ INGAA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. Finally, PGC and Washington Gas state that many of the
examples of information proposed to be shared between pipelines and
transmission operators could be made public and shared with all market
participants.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ PGC Comments at 3 and 4; Washington Gas Comments at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    123. The Commission finds that the term ``non-public, operational
information'' is sufficiently clear to describe the information that
may be shared under this Final Rule. The examples provide guidance to
public utilities and interstate natural gas pipelines as to the types
of information that may be communicated under the rule. In general, we
respond to comments regarding the specific list of examples provided in
the NOPR with the guidance that we expect transmission operators to
exchange that information which they find relevant to promote reliable
service or operational planning on their systems. As explained in the
NOPR, and reaffirmed here, the Commission is providing flexibility to
transmission operators--who have the most insight and knowledge of
their systems--to determine what non-public, operational information,
if any, they deem valuable to maintain the reliability and integrity of
their systems.
    124. Regarding concerns of onerous requests by one transmission
operator to another, we reiterate that the communications permitted
under the Final Rule are voluntary and to the extent a transmission
operator chooses not to share the requested non-public, operational
information, the transmission operator is free to do so. For example,
the Commission does not anticipate that an interstate natural gas
pipeline will automatically share with an electric transmission
operator all of the pipeline's non-public operational information in
its possession. Rather, the interstate natural gas pipeline will share
non-public operational information as necessary to promote reliable
service and operational planning.
    125. In response to PGC and Washington Gas, the Commission
disagrees that the non-public, operational information transmission
operators are permitted to share with one another should generally be
made public. The Commission is providing explicit authority to
transmission operators to exchange confidential and potentially
commercially sensitive information, including generator-specific
information, with one another for the purpose of promoting reliable
service or operational planning. As discussed in more detail infra, the
Commission is adopting a No-Conduit Rule due to concerns regarding the
improper use of such information if disclosed to a third party or to a
transmission operator's marketing function employees.

IV. Clarification Regarding Table-Top Exercises

A. NOPR

    126. In the NOPR, the Commission provided clarification of the
applicability of the Standards of Conduct and statutory prohibition
against undue discrimination to exchanges of information with regard to
table-top exercises involving market affiliates of transmission
providers and inter-industry participants.\184\ The Commission
clarified that, under the Standards of Conduct, marketing function
employees may participate in table-top exercises that include a wide
range of industry participants who will have equal access to non-public
transmission information. However, the Commission re-emphasized that
non-public transmission information cannot be provided during private
table-top exercises involving only the transmission provider and
marketing function employees since they would receive preferential
access to non-public transmission information or preferential access to
transmission facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,699 at PP 20-21 (cross-
referenced at 144 FERC ] 61,043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    127. EEI and NGSA request that the Commission clarify the meaning
of a ``tabletop exercise.'' \185\ EEI also requests that the Commission
clarify that marketing function employees can continue to participate
in these

exercises without violating the No-Conduit Rule in the NOPR.\186\ NGSA
also requests that the Commission clarify that commercially sensitive
information should not be disclosed at these events without consent of
the relevant companies.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ EEI Comments at 7; NGSA Comments at 11.
    \186\ EEI Comments at 7.
    \187\ NGSA Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    128. As used in the NOPR, the term ``table-top exercise'' refers to
an exercise used to assess inter- or intra-industry coordination and
communications, usually during an emergency situation. For example, the
NYTOs stated in earlier comments that the electric and gas industries
in New York regularly participate in separate ``tabletop'' reliability
drills. They stated that the NYISO and NYTOs conduct drills prior to
each summer season to simulate the restoration of service after a gas
supply-related outage and the Northeast Gas Association holds annual
emergency communications exercises among gas utilities and interstate
pipelines serving the northeast that simulate conditions following
major system emergencies.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ NYTOs Comments, Docket No. AD12-12-000, at 5 (filed Jan.
7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    129. As requested by EEI, we clarify that under the Standards of
Conduct and under the Final Rule, marketing function employees may
participate in table-top exercises that include a wide range of
industry participants who will have equal access to non-public
transmission or operational information. However, non-public
transmission or operational information cannot be provided during
private table-top exercises involving only the transmission provider or
operator and marketing function employees since they would receive
preferential access to non-public transmission or operational
information or preferential access to transmission facilities.
    130. The Commission also clarifies that, under the Standards of
Conduct and the Final Rule, the disclosure of commercially sensitive,
customer-specific information at these events is not permitted without
the consent of the relevant entities.

V. Miscellaneous

A. Monitoring, Existing Tariff Requirements, Document Destruction

1. Comments
    131. AEP requests that the Commission designate an entity to ensure
that reliability and market protections are in place because of the
potential for disagreement between the two industries with regard to
confidential information sharing.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ AEP Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. NRECA states that the Commission should maintain in the Final
Rule the explicit requirement that ``to the extent that an electric
transmission operator or interstate natural gas pipeline has a tariff
provision which precludes a communication that would otherwise be
authorized under the proposed regulations, it [must] make a filing
under the FPA or NGA to revise that provision to permit such exchanges
of information.'' \190\ However, NRECA states that the Commission
should clarify that to the extent market participants' confidential
information is required by tariff to be protected from public
disclosure, the Final Rule in this proceeding cannot be deemed to
supersede those tariff provisions.\191\ NRECA states that in addition
to protecting against disclosure of confidential information which is
subject to existing tariff provisions, the Final Rule should also
provide assurance that existing notice provisions regarding disclosure
of confidential information will be followed for sharing of non-pubic
operational information.\192\ NRECA states that the Final Rule should
adopt the Commission's proposal to clarify that existing tariffs must
be complied with absent a Commission-approved revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ NRECA Comments at 5 (citing NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,699 at P 10 (cross-referenced at 144 FERC ] 61,043).
    \191\ NRECA provides as an example PJM's Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement which prohibits disclosure of confidential
information except in defined circumstances, including to NERC and
applicable regional entities for reliability.
    \192\ NRECA states that PJM's Operating Agreement requires
notice to the affected Member before PJM can make any disclosure of
confidential information if required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. NEPGA asserts that the Commission should establish rules for
the destruction or return of written or recorded information within six
months to protect generators' commercial interests.\193\ NEPGA contends
that this requirement is an important protection against the
potentially harmful effects of the distribution of generator-specific,
commercially sensitive information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ NEPGA Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    134. In response to AEP, the Commission reaffirms that the
communications permitted under the Final Rule are voluntary and that to
the extent a transmission operator chooses not to share the requested
non-public, operational information, the transmission operator is free
to do so. To the extent this voluntary approach proves inadequate to
promote reliable service or operational planning, the Commission may
revisit the need to require certain communications or information
sharing between transmission operators in the future. However, the
Commission finds that providing explicit authority to transmission
operators--who have the most insight and knowledge of their systems--to
share non-public, operational information with each other will promote
reliable service or operational planning on both the public utility's
and pipeline's system. Furthermore, the Commission declines to adopt
AEP's proposal to designate an entity to supervise interstate natural
gas pipeline-electric transmission operator communications. We see no
need for such supervision of this voluntary information sharing program
at this time. With regard to requests for added market protections, as
discussed above, we conclude that the No-Conduit Rule, together with
the requirements that natural gas pipelines and electric transmission
operators abide by their tariffs, provides a reasonable balance between
the exchange of important information and protection against the
disclosure of non-public operational information, including
confidential information.
    135. In response to NRECA's comments regarding the relationship of
this Final Rule to existing tariff provisions, we note that this Final
Rule does not supersede any existing tariff provisions.\194\ Thus, to
the extent an electric transmission operator or interstate natural gas
pipeline has an existing tariff provision that precludes a
communication that would otherwise be authorized under the regulations
adopted here, before it may share such precluded information under the
express authorization provided in this Final Rule, it must make a
filing under the FPA or NGA to revise that provision to permit such
exchanges of information. In short, if a transmission operator wants to
take advantage of the explicit authority provided by the Commission
under the Final Rule, and that transmission operator has tariff
provisions prohibiting the communications permitted under this rule, it
must make a filing with the Commission to revise the relevant tariff
provisions to permit such exchanges of information. Similarly, we
clarify that any existing tariff provisions requiring

notice regarding the disclosure of confidential information, including
the non-public, operational information at issue here, remain in place
unless proposed revisions to those tariffs are approved by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation
Services, and Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Transportation
Services, 101 FERC ] 61,127, at P 36 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. In response to NEPGA, the Commission declines to generically
establish rules for the destruction or return of written or recorded
information within six months to protect generator's commercial
interests. As discussed previously, the Commission is adopting a No-
Conduit Rule which, together with the requirements that natural gas
pipelines and electric transmission operators abide by their tariffs,
should adequately protect against the harmful disclosure or
distribution of non-public operational information, including
generator-specific, commercially sensitive information.

B. Costs of Information Sharing

1. Comments
    137. ELCON suggests that Commission require natural gas pipelines
and electric transmission operators to account for the costs of
information sharing.\195\ ELCON requests that the Commission direct
natural gas pipelines and electric transmission operators to not incur
costs that are not commensurate with an identified benefit. ELCON
suggests that the NOPR's flexibility and non-binding examples of
information sharing raise the specter that the Commission contemplates
implementation of extensive information sharing systems whose costs
outweigh the benefits to system reliability and contingency planning.
ELCON requests that the Commission explicitly state that it is not
intending to encourage the development and implementation of
information sharing systems whose costs are not commensurate with their
benefits.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ ELCON Comments at 2-3.
    \196\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    138. The Commission finds that ELCON's request for transmission
operators to account for the costs of information sharing are premature
and outside the scope of this Final Rule. In this Final Rule, the
Commission is providing explicit authority for transmission operators
to share non-public, operational information with each other for the
purpose of promoting reliable service or operational planning. In
addition, the Commission reiterates that in adopting the proposed
regulations, the Commission is providing flexibility to individual
transmission operators--who have the most insight and knowledge of
their systems--to share that information which they deem necessary to
promote reliable service and operational planning on their system.
Issues related to the costs of systems or procedures developed to allow
for the information sharing permitted by this Final Rule may be
appropriately raised in other proceedings, including transmission
operators' rate cases.

C. Implementation

1. Comments
    139. NGSA suggests that the Commission implement its proposed rule
on an interim basis and reassess the impacts of allowing the proposed
communication between utilities after some experience under the new
communications regime. NGSA states that this approach would be similar
to past rulemaking proceedings such as the natural gas capacity release
rulemaking.\197\ NGSA proposes that after an interim period of one
year, transmission operators should report to the Commission what
information was shared and how this information sharing promoted
reliable service or operational planning.\198\ NGSA suggests that the
information would need to be provided in a manner that protects
confidential or proprietary data. After the interim period,
transmission operators would also report what actions were taken based
on information exchanges to allow the Commission to more accurately
assess the benefits of increased communications. NGSA also suggests
that the Commission release a report summarizing the impacts of this
information sharing rule and hold a technical conference for industry
to assess the impacts of the rule. NGSA states that at the technical
conference, the Commission and industry should assess whether: (1) The
scope of allowed communications should be narrowe; (2) additional
protections are needed to ensure commercially sensitive information is
not released; and (3) transmission operators should be required to
publicly post shared information that is not commercially
sensitive.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ NGSA Comments at 9-10 (citing Regulation of Short-Term
Natural Gas Transportation Services and Regulation of Interstate
Natural Gas Transportation Services, Order No. 637, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,091 (2000) (cross-referenced at 90 FERC ] 61,109
(2000))).
    \198\ Id. at 10.
    \199\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. NGSA suggests that the assessment and technical conference
would allow the Commission to determine whether further improvements to
the communications rules are needed. After receiving reports from
transmission operators and pipelines, the Commission could consider
whether some publicly available and not commercially sensitive
communications should be publicly posted, for example, on a pipeline
EBB. NGSA contends that the Commission could also determine whether
market participants' information is sufficiently protected under the
proposed rule. NGSA suggests that requiring pipelines and transmission
operators to report what information they communicated during an
interim test period will allow the Commission and industry to determine
what additional protections might be needed. NGSA suggests that market
participants would have greater confidence in expanded communications
knowing that there would be an opportunity to learn what information
was shared and that the Commission would make changes to the rule if
needed.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ NGSA Comments at 11.

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

    141. NRECA suggests that the Commission require ``status report''
filings by transmission operators to explain progress made in the
sharing of non-public, operational information.\201\ NRECA states that
the reports could be part of a comprehensive submission to be submitted
at regular intervals (e.g., quarterly or semi-annually), similar to the
reports required by RTOs and ISOs on gas-electric coordination issues,
or could focus only on implementation of the Final Rule in this
proceeding. Either way, NRECA suggests that the Final Rule include a
mechanism for the Commission to gauge response and outcome of the Final
Rule, and its impact on gas-electric coordination efforts.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ NRECA Comments at 5.
    \202\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    142. APPA suggests that, after a period of time, the Commission
could revisit its revised regulations in this area to determine whether
it needs to further define the term ``non-public, operational
information'' and to evaluate how the voluntary approach is
working.\203\ PUCO also states that it would be appropriate for the
Commission to periodically review which non-public information is
shared and whether that exchange of information is adequate to maintain
reliability.\204\ PUCO further states that because different regions
will have diverse practices concerning the level and type of non-public
information shared, the Commission should use the collection of such
data to arrive at a proposed best practices solution that is most
effective to ensure efficient operations and to promote reliability.
NESCOE also encourages the Commission to undertake periodic assessments
of the efficacy of the changes made in the Final Rule, the extent to
which impediments to communications and information sharing remain, and
consider additional actions if needed. \205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ APPA Comment at 5.
    \204\ PUCO Comments at 6.
    \205\ NESCOE Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    143. The Commission will not adopt NGSA's suggestion of
implementing the proposed rule on an interim basis. The Commission is
concerned that existing barriers--real or perceived--to the sharing of
non-public, operational information could impede transmission
operators' ability to reliably manage the operation of interstate
natural gas pipeline and electric transmission systems. Therefore, the
Commission is taking action to ensure that transmission operators
covered by this rule may communicate non-public, operational
information, subject to the No-Conduit Rule.
    144. The Commission declines to adopt the suggestion of NRECA,
APPA, PUCO and NESCO that transmission operators submit status report
filings describing progress made in the sharing of non-public,
operational information. We fully expect market participants in both
industries, as they experience the communications contemplated by this
Final Rule, to keep the Commission informed about progress, issues and
areas of possible improvement. We see no reason to impose a requirement
for status reports at this time.

VI. Information Collection Statement

    145. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is
being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA).\206\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\207\ Upon approval of a
collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an
expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to this collection of
information if the collection of information does not display a valid
OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \207\ 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    146. Public Reporting Burden: The communications and information
sharing (described in new 18 CFR 38.2 and 18 CFR 284.12(b)(4)) are
voluntary, take place between various industry entities (and are not
submitted to the Commission), and are intended to promote reliable
service or operational planning. In the NOPR, the Commission solicited
comments on the need for this information and the frequency of
providing it (number of responses per respondent). No filed comments
addressed the proposed Information Collection Statement, including the
estimated public reporting burden, or the proposed Regulatory
Flexibility Act Certification, including the estimated impact on small
entities. Commenters acknowledged that reliability and operational
planning on interstate natural gas pipelines and electric transmission
systems could be further enhanced by information sharing. While the
extent of such communications likely will vary significantly across the
country, the annual estimates represent an expected average and reflect
the burden for operational planning and emergencies.
    147. In the Final Rule, the Commission explains that to the extent
an electric transmission operator or interstate natural gas pipeline
has a tariff provision which precludes a communication that would
otherwise be authorized under the proposed regulations, it must make a
filing under section 205 of the FPA or section 4 of the NGA to revise
that provision to permit such exchanges of information.
    148. The reporting requirements in the Final Rule include: the
voluntary communication of non-public, operational information among
interstate natural gas pipelines and electric transmission operators,
and possibly necessary tariff filings by electric transmission
operators and natural gas pipelines. The additional estimated annual
burden and cost follow.

 FERC-923, Communication of Operational Information Between Natural Gas Pipelines and Electric Transmission Operators, Final Rule in Docket No. RM13-17
                                                                          \208\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of        Number of      Average burden    Total annual     Total annual
                        Type of entity  (1)                            respondents     responses per      hours per       burden hours   cost ($) (5)*($/
                                                                           (2)        respondent  (3)   response  (4)   (2)*(3)*(4)=(5)   hr)=(6) \209\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Utility Transmission Operator, communications...............        \210\ 167         \211\ 12             0.50             1002          $60,531
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, communications...................        \212\ 137               12             0.50              822           49,657
Public Utility Transmission Operator (tariff change)...............          \213\ 4                2          \214\ 8               64            2,832
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (tariff change)...................          \215\ 4                1          \216\ 8               32            1,416
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................................  ...............  ...............  ...............            1,920          114,436
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-923, ``Communication of Operational Information between
Natural Gas Pipelines, and Electric Transmission Operators.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Columns 5 and 6 are rounded.
    \209\ For communications, the estimated hourly cost (for salary
plus benefits) is $60.41; estimated annual costs are $125,647 (based
on 2,080 hours per year). It is based on data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-2013 edition
for the top 10% of ``Power Plant Operators, Distributors, and
Dispatchers'' (at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/).
    For tariff filings, the average hourly cost (for salary plus
benefits) is $44.25. This hourly estimate will be used for public
utility transmission operators and interstate natural gas pipelines.
It is based on data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012--2013 edition for the median for
``Lawyers,'' ``Paralegal and Legal Assistants,'' and ``Secretaries
and Administrative Support'' (at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/). The
estimated annual costs (salary plus benefits) for Lawyers, Paralegal
and Legal Assistance, and Secretaries and Administrative Support are
$160,398, $66,401, and $49,303, respectively. The hourly cost (based
on 2080 hours per year) is $77.11, $31.92 and $23.70 for the three
occupations, respectively.
    For the estimate of the benefits component, see http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
    \210\ The estimate for the number of respondents is based on the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Compliance
Registry as of April 30, 2013, minus the Transmission Operators
within ERCOT. Using the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition, 31 of the 167 Public Utility Transmission Operators are
considered ``small.''
    \211\ The Commission estimates an annual average per entity of
12 responses (including electric and gas emergency and/or
operational contacts).
    \212\ The 2012 filings of the FERC Forms 2 and 2A indicated that
there are 137 interstate natural gas pipelines. Of those pipelines,
eight (8) are considered small using the definition of the Small
Business Administration (at 13 CFR 121.301), including the
affiliates.
    \213\ Of the 167 Public Utility Transmission Operators, the
Commission estimates that four will make tariff filings.
    \214\ The Commission estimates that the public utility
transmission operator will require eight work hours to file the
amendment to the tariff from a team that consists of a ``Lawyer,'' a
``Paralegal and Legal Assistant,'' and a ``Secretary and
Administrative Support.''
    \215\ Of the 137 interstate natural gas pipelines, the
Commission estimates that four will make tariff filings.
    \216\ The Commission estimates that an interstate natural gas
pipeline will require eight work hours to file the amendment to the
tariff from a team that consists of a ``Lawyer,'' a ``Paralegal and
Legal Assistant,'' and a ``Secretary and Administrative Support.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: Proposed FERC-923.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0265 (FERC-923).
    Respondents: Public utility transmission operators and interstate
natural gas pipelines.
    Frequency of Responses: FERC-923, as needed.
    Necessity of the Information: In this Final Rule, the Commission is
revising Parts 38 and 284 of the Commission's regulations to authorize
interstate natural gas pipelines and public utilities that own,
operate, or control facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce to share non-public, operational
information for the purpose of promoting reliable service and
operational planning on either the public utility's or pipeline's
system. Such sharing is voluntary.
    149. The revised regulations will help promote the reliability of
pipeline and public utility transmission service by permitting
transmission operators to share information that they deem necessary to
promote the reliability and integrity of their systems with each other.
    150. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
and determined that the proposed amendments are necessary. These
requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information
collection, communication, and management within the energy industry.
The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements. 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: (202)
502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    151. 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, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax: (202) 395-
7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB
should include Docket Number RM13-17-000, FERC-923 (OMB Control No.
1902-0268).

VII. Environmental Analysis

    152. 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.\217\ The
Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required for this Final Rule under
section 380.4(a)(2)(ii) of the Commission's regulations, which provides
a categorical exemption for proposals for legislation and promulgation
of rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not
substantively change the effect of legislation or regulations being
amended.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \218\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    153. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \219\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA
mandates

consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated
objectives of a rule and that minimize any significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's (SBA's) Office of Size Standards develops the
numerical definition of a small business.\220\ The SBA has established
a size standard, for electric utilities, electric power distribution,
and electric bulk power transmission and control, stating that a firm
is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the
transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did
not exceed four million megawatt hours.\221\ For pipeline
transportation of natural gas, the SBA defines a small entity as having
a maximum annual receipt of $25.5 million dollars.\222\ For a ``Natural
Gas Distribution'' company, the SBA defines a small entity as having
less than 500 employees.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).
    \220\ 13 CFR 121.101 (2012).
    \221\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Subsector 221, Utilities & n.1.
    \222\ Based on 13 CFR 121.201, Sectors 48-49, Subsector 486,
Pipeline Transportation, the annual receipts indicate the maximum
allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered ``small.''
    \223\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Subsector 221, Utilities, NAICS
code 221210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    154. The Commission estimates a total of 39 ``small'' entities
\224\ (or 12.8 percent of the total of 304 entities), and an average
annual cost for each entity of $376.\225\ This proposal will enable
entities of all sizes to communicate voluntarily and to share non-
public, operational information for the purpose of promoting reliable
service or operational planning, thereby easing and improving the
normal business process. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that
this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ Based on the SBA definitions and including affiliates, the
number of ``small'' entities is estimated to be: (1) for public
utility transmission operators, 31 small public utilities; and (2)
for interstate natural gas pipelines, eight small interstate natural
gas pipelines.
    \225\ The information sharing and communications permitted in
this Final Rule are voluntary. For small entities which do not serve
or take service from natural gas-fired electric generators, no such
communications are necessary or required and their burden will
effectively be zero. For small entities which do not wish to
participate in communications among transmission operators serving
or being served by natural gas-fired electric generators, their
burden is also zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Document Availability

    155. 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.
    156. 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.
    157. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site 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>
X. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    158. These regulations are effective December 23, 2013. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 23,
2013. 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.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 38

    Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 284

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 38
and Part 284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 38--STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 38 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. The heading of Part 38 is revised to read as set forth above:

Sec.  38.1  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  38.1.

Sec.  38.2  [Redesignated as Sec.  38.1]

0
4. Redesignate Sec.  38.2 as Sec.  38.1

0
5. In newly redesignated Sec.  38.1, paragraph (a) is revised to read
as follows:

Sec.  38.1  Incorporation by reference of North American Energy
Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.

    (a) Any public utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities
used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce or
for the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce and
any non-public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with
jurisdictional transmission tariff reciprocity conditions must comply
with the following business practice and electronic communication
standards promulgated by the North American Energy Standards Board
Wholesale Electric Quadrant, which are incorporated herein by
reference:
* * * * *

0
6. New Sec.  38.2 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  38.2  Communication and information sharing among public
utilities and pipelines.

    (a) Any public utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities
used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce is
authorized to share non-public, operational information with a
pipeline, as defined in Sec.  284.12(b)(4) of this chapter, or another
public utility covered by this section for the purpose of promoting
reliable service or operational planning.
    (b) Except as permitted in paragraph (a) of this section, a public
utility, as defined in this section, and its employees, contractors,
consultants, and agents are prohibited from disclosing, or using anyone
as a conduit for the disclosure of, non-public, operational information
received from a pipeline pursuant to Sec.  284.12(b)(4) of this chapter
to a third party or to its marketing function employees as that term is
defined in Sec.  358.3(d) of this chapter.

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

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

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.
0
8. In Sec.  284.12, paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Communication and information sharing among pipelines and
public utilities. (i) A pipeline is authorized to share non-public,
operational information with a public utility, as defined in Sec.
38.2(a) of this chapter or another pipeline covered by this section,
for the purpose of promoting reliable service or operational planning.
    (ii) Except as permitted in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, a
pipeline and its employees, contractors, consultants, and agents are
prohibited from disclosing, or using anyone as a conduit for the
disclosure of, non-public, operational information received from a
public utility pursuant to Sec.  38.2 of this chapter to a third party
or to its marketing function employees as that term is defined in Sec.
358.3(d) of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 2013-28078 Filed 11-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22910-22913]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-117-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-05-02, which
applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -
232, and -233, and A321 series airplanes. This action revises the NPRM
by proposing to require revising the maintenance or inspection program
to incorporate new or revised structural inspection requirements and
adding airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions
impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are
reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment
on these proposed changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29198), is reopened.
    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6429; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
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-2016-6429;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-117-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
SNPRM because of 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 SNPRM.

Discussion

    On February 25, 2015, we issued AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112
(80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) (``AD 2015-05-02''). AD 2015-05-02
requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus
Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233, and A321
series airplanes.
    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to
supersede AD 2015-05-02 that would apply to

certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and
-233, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 11, 2016 (81 FR 29198) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was
prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which
indicates that principal structural elements and certain life-limited
parts are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The NPRM proposed
to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or revised structural inspection
requirements.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, the manufacturer has issued more
restrictive airworthiness limitations and added Model A320-251N and -
271N airplanes to the applicability.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0239, dated December 2, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes
are currently included in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The Damage Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items are published in ALS Part 2, approved
by EASA.
    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 2 have been
identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure
to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe
condition.
    Previously, EASA issued AD 2015-0083 to require accomplishment
of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 2 at Revision 03.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus issued Revision 04, and
later on Revision 05 of the ALS Part 2, including new and/or more
restrictive items, and new A320 models were certified.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2015-0083, which is superseded, expands the
Applicability by adding the models A320-251N and A320-271N, requires
accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS Part
2, Revision 05 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA]
AD), and provides specific compliance times for ALS task 572021-01-1
(Wide Spread Fatigue Damage related).

    The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection
program to incorporate new or revised structural inspection
requirements. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, accidental
damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6429.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.
     A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 1--Safe Life--Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL--ALI),
Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016. This service information describes
mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations for the ``safe-
life'' structure.
     A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2--Damage-Tolerant--
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT--ALI), Revision 05, dated July 8,
2016. This service information describes mandatory instructions and
airworthiness limitations arising from fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluation of damage tolerant structural elements.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing the
NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the
FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Specify Revised Service Information

    Airbus requested that we revise the NPRM to specify the latest ALS
Part 1 document, which is currently Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part
1 SL--ALI, Revision 03, dated February 22, 2016. Airbus and United
Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise the NPRM to specify Revision 05
of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2--DT--ALI, which is expected to
be published soon.
    We agree with the commenters' requests. We have reviewed the latest
ALS documents: Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1--SL--ALI, Revision
04, dated June 20, 2016; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2--
DT--ALI, Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016.
    We have added paragraph (j) to this proposed AD to specify that the
incorporation of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1--SL--ALI,
Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016, is a method of compliance for the
requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD. We have
redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
    We have also revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD to specify
incorporation of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2--DT--ALI,
Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016.

Request To Allow Repair Design Approval Sheets (RDAS)

    UAL requested that we allow the instructions for continued
airworthiness (ICA) defined in Airbus/EASA-approved RDAS as an
acceptable adaptation to an ALI task for the affected repair location
in lieu of obtaining approval of an FAA alternative method of
compliance (AMOC). UAL stated that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in
the NPRM) (referred to as paragraph (k) of this proposed AD (in the
SNPRM)) prohibits alternative action(s), including inspections and/or
intervals, unless approved by an AMOC.
    We do not agree with UAL's request. 14 CFR part 39.17 states that
if a change in a product affects an operator's ability to accomplish
the actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, the
operator must request FAA approval of an AMOC. For approval of an AMOC,
the operator must provide evidence that the change will eliminate the
unsafe condition or include the specific proposed actions to address
the unsafe condition. An operator can submit a RDAS as substantiation
to support a request for an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD. We have not changed
this proposed AD in this regard.

Request for Repair Policy Clarification

    UAL requested that we clarify the repairs required by the proposed
AD. UAL explained that paragraph 5.3 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS
Part 2, DT--ALI, Revision 04, dated December 18, 2015, states that
operators must follow the structural repair manual or RDAS in case of
damage or repairs. UAL stated that it is not certain that this
provision provides authority to incorporate the adapted ICA for the
repairs without requesting approval of an FAA AMOC.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. AMOCs are not required to
address findings from the required ALS inspection because the AD does
not mandate corrective actions. An AMOC is only required if there are
deviations from the ALS inspection method or interval. Operators of
U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and
operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are
acceptable to the

FAA. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    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 these
same type designs.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,182 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions required by AD 2015-05-02, and retained in this
proposed AD, take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the actions that are required by AD 2015-05-02 is $170 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $200,940, or $170
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 affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-6429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
117-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 3, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152,
March 23, 2015) (``AD 2015-05-02'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with
an original certificate of airworthiness or original export
certificate of airworthiness issued on or before July 8, 2016.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N,
and -271N airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
Inspections.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder which indicates that principal structural elements and
certain life-limited parts are subject to widespread fatigue damage
(WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking,
accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements,
and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD
2015-05-02, with no changes. Within 30 days after March 2, 2015 (the
effective date of AD 2014-23-15, Amendment 39-18031 (80 FR 3871,
January 26, 2015) (``AD 2014-23-15'')), revise the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the Airworthiness
Limitation Items (ALIs) specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions
is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD; or within 4 months after
March 2, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-23-15); whichever
occurs later.
    (1) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1--Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitation Items, Revision 02, dated May 13, 2011.
    (2) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2--Damage-Tolerant
Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT ALI), Revision 02, dated May 28,
2013.

(h) Retained Limitation: No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With an
Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD
2015-05-02, with an exception. Except as specified in paragraph (i)
or (j) of this AD, as applicable, after accomplishing the revision
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the
actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection

program, as applicable, to incorporate the ALIs specified in Airbus
A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness
Limitation Items (DT--ALI), Revision 05, dated July 8, 2016. The
initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the
applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in
    Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2, DT--ALI, Revision 05,
dated July 8, 2016, without exceeding the inspection intervals in
the ALIs specified in the service information identified in
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing this action terminates
the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(j) New Method of Compliance for Maintenance or Inspection Program
Revision

    Revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1--Safe Life
Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL--ALI), Revision 04, dated June
20, 2016, is a method of compliance for the actions required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The initial compliance time for
accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in
the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Part 1--Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation
Items (SL--ALI), Revision 04, dated June 20, 2016, without exceeding
the inspection intervals in the ALIs specified in the service
information identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Accomplishing
this action terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD.

(k) New No Alternative Actions and/or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) or
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) and/or intervals may be used unless the actions and/or
intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2015-05-02, are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0239, dated December 2,
2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6429.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10034 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36271-36272]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL21-88-000]

Great River Energy; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 1, 2021, Great River Energy (GRE), filed a
revised revenue requirement for providing Reactive Supply and Voltage
Control from Generation or Other Sources Service (Reactive Power
Service) supplied by GRE's generation resources located in the
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s region.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    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) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 22, 2021.

    Dated: July 2, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14669 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I was a pack and a half smoker most of my life. I discovered e cigs August 10, 2011, and instantly quit smoking. I have since cut mu nicotine level down by 75% and plan on reducing my nicotine level to 0% in the next six months. I don't know what my health would be like today if I had not started the ecig use and quit the cigarette habit.  Please keep the comment period open for 180 days to give all my fellow vapors a chance to tell you of the benefits they have received from these products. A firm believer in the benefits of ecigs and vaping vs. tobacco use. Thanks,