[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28093-28094]
[DOCID:fr19my10-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62080; File No. SR-BX-2010-035]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System

May 11, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 3, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by BX. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ BX has designated this proposal as establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge, which renders the proposed
rule change effective upon filing. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    BX proposes to modify pricing for BX members using the NASDAQ OMX
BX Equities System. BX will implement the proposed change on May 3,
2010. The text of the proposed rule change is

available at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, BX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. BX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    BX is proposing to modify its fees for orders that execute at
prices below $1. Currently, BX charges 0.15% (15 basis points) of the
total dollar value of the execution to members accessing liquidity, and
provides a rebate of 0.05% (5 basis points) of the total dollar value
to members providing liquidity. Through this filing, BX will reduce the
fee to access liquidity to 0.10% (10 basis points) of the total dollar
value and eliminate the rebate for providing liquidity. The change is a
competitive response to several other transaction venues that have made
recent changes to fees for securities priced under $1.\5\ The new fees
are consistent with the limitations of Regulation NMS, SEC Rule 610(c),
for securities with a price of less than $1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://apps.nyse.com/commdata/pub19b4.nsf/docs/
50B8C6B6842FEA1E85257700006A989D/$FILE/NYSEArca-2010-26.pdf (NYSE
Arca); http://www.nsx.com/resources/content/5/1/documents/SR-NSX-
2010-04.pdf (National Stock Exchange); http://www.ise.com/assets/
documents/OptionsExchange/legal/proposed_rule_changes/2010/SR-ISE-
2010-29$Proposed_Rule_Change_Relating_to_Direct_Edge%20_ECN_
Fee_Change_for_ISE_Members$20100405.pdf (Direct Edge).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which BX operates or controls. The impact of the price changes upon the
net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend upon a
number of variables, including the relative availability of liquidity
on BX and other venues, the prices of the market participant's quotes
and orders relative to the national best bid and offer (i.e., its
propensity to add or remove liquidity), and the types of securities
that it trades. BX believes that the proposed changes are reasonable
and equitable in that they apply uniformly to all similarly situated
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market
for order execution and routing is extremely competitive, members may
readily direct orders to BX's competitors if they object to the
proposed rule change.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-035 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2010-035. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-
2010-035 and should be submitted on or before June 9, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11935 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35881]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR11-13-000]

ConocoPhillips Company v. SFPP, L.P.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 13, 2011, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2011), section 343.2 of the
Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2,
and section 13(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. App.
13(1), ConocoPhillips Company (Complainant) filed a formal complaint
against SFPP, L.P. (Respondent), challenging the lawfulness of the
Respondent's existing rates and charges for services on its interstate
oil pipeline system and alleging that the Respondent violated and
continues to violate the ICA by charging unjust and unreasonable rates
for Respondent's jurisdictional interstate service.
    The Complainant stated that copies of the complaint have been
served on the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate officials.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 5, 2011.

    Dated: June 14, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15256 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5301-5304]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0029; Product Identifier 2015-NM-132-AD; Amendment
39-19179; AD 2018-03-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-18,
which applied to all Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -301, -302, and
-303 airplanes. AD 2015-02-18 required a one-time ultrasonic inspection
for fractures of all aft mount-pylon bolts of each engine. This new AD
was prompted by the failure of a bolt on the aft engine mount upper
beam, which was found to be caused by inappropriate in-production upper
beam installation. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain
instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and
doing the actions specified in those instructions. We are issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 26, 2018.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-2018-
0029; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued AD 2015-02-18, Amendment 39-18085 (80 FR 5020, January
30, 2015) (``AD 2015-02-18''), which applied to all Airbus Model A330-
201, -202, -203, -301, -302, and -303 airplanes. AD 2015-02-18 was
prompted by a report of one bolt on the aft engine mount upper beam
found totally broken. AD 2015-02-18 required a one-time ultrasonic
inspection for fractures of all aft mount-pylon bolts of each engine.
We issued AD 2015-02-18 to detect and correct fracture of the aft
mount-pylon bolts, which could result in failure of the engine mount
and consequent detachment of the engine.
    Since we issued AD 2015-02-18, further investigation showed that
the pylon bolt failure was caused by inappropriate upper beam
installation during production. We have determined that repetitive
inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2015-0126, dated July 1, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a scheduled replacement of a CF6-80E1 engine on an A330
aeroplane, a bolt on the aft engine mount upper beam was found
sheared. The affected bolt is one out of four bolts that attach the
upper beam to the pylon.
    Investigation results revealed an unusual contact with the
counter-bore edge of the beam which induced a significant groove on
the bolt during its installation in production. It is suspected that
the induced groove led to a fatigue crack initiation and subsequent
quick propagation leading to the complete fracture of the bolt. In
case of multiple bolt fractures, the remaining bolts would be
insufficient to sustain the residual fatigue and limit loads.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead, in
case of multiple bolt fracture, to loss of an engine mount
structural integrity and possible in-flight engine detachment,
resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane and/or injury to
persons on the ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-
0094 to require a one-time ultrasonic (US) inspection of the four
aft mount-pylon bolts of both engines to detect sheared bolts and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
actions.
    Since EASA AD 2013-0094 was issued, further investigation
results revealed that the pylon bolt failure was caused by
inappropriate upper beam installation during production. An abnormal
bending load applied on the bolt during installation of the upper
beam could have increased the stress close to or beyond the limit
strength, high enough to fracture the bolt.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB)
A330-71-3031 providing instructions for repetitive inspections and
the applicable corrective actions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which
supersedes EASA AD 2013-0094, requires repetitive US inspections of
the aft mount-pylons bolts of each engine and, depending on
findings, corrective actions.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0029.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

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

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we
find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0029; Product
Identifier 2015-NM-132-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD
requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the
unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those
instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are
providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is
placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                           Labor cost            Parts cost         Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (new action)................  8 work-hours x $85 per                  $0  $680 per inspection cycle.
                                           hour = $680 per
                                           inspection cycle..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
repairs that would be required based on the results of the required
actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                           Labor cost             Parts cost         Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair (new action)..................  Up to 337 work-hours x $85              \(1)\  Up to $28,645.
                                        per hour = $28,645.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition
  actions specified in this AD.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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)
2015-02-18, Amendment 39-18085 (80 FR 5020, January 30, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

2018-03-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-19179; Docket No. FAA-2018-0029;
Product Identifier 2015-NM-132-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 22, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-02-18, Amendment 39-18085 (80 FR 5020,
January 30, 2015) (``AD 2015-02-18'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -301, -
302, and -303 airplanes, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus
modification 203947 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the failure of a bolt on the aft engine
mount upper beam, which was found to be caused by inappropriate in-
production upper beam installation. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fracture of the aft mount-pylon bolts, which could
result in loss of engine mount structural integrity, consequent
detachment of the engine and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action(s)

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request
instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in
paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times
specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance
can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2015-0126, dated
July 1, 2015.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch,
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 Section, send it to the
attention of the person identified in

paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2015-0126, dated July 1, 2015, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0029.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 25, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02350 Filed 2-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12832-12835]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD12-8-000]

Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics; Commission Staff Request
Comments on Performance Metrics for Regions Outside of RTOs and ISOs

    In September 2008, the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report titled ``Electricity Restructuring: FERC
Could Take Additional Steps to Analyze Regional Transmission
Organizations' Benefits and Performance,'' GAO-08-987. This report
recommended that the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC), among other actions, work with
regional transmission organizations (RTO), Independent System Operators
(ISO), stakeholders and other experts to develop standardized measures
that track the performance of RTO/ISO operations and markets and report
the performance results to Congress and the public annually, while also
providing interpretation of (1) what the measures and reported
performance communicate about the benefits of RTOs and, where
appropriate, (2) changes that need to be made to address any
performance concerns. Consistent with the goals outlined in GAO's
report, the Commission's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2009-2014
outlined a multi-year process for developing and implementing a common
set of performance measures for markets both within and outside of
ISOs/RTOs.
    As recommended by GAO, Commission staff worked with representatives
from all the jurisdictional ISOs/RTOs to develop a set of performance
metrics for ISOs and RTOs. Commission staff and ISO/RTO representatives
met with interested stakeholders to solicit their perspectives and
comments on the proposed performance metrics. Commission staff then
released the proposed metrics for public comment in Docket No. AD10-5-
000. In October 2010, Commission staff issued a staff report addressing
the comments received and recommending a final list of metrics for ISOs
and RTOs. In December 2010, the ISOs and RTOs submitted information for
the 2005-2009 period addressing the final metrics developed by
Commission staff. This information, along with a staff report and
analysis of performance as measured by the metrics, was included in a
report sent to Congress in April 2011. The ISOs and RTOs subsequently
submitted a report providing data for the 2006-2010 period.
    Now, Commission staff has started the process of developing metrics
to measure performance in regions outside of ISOs and RTOs. Consistent
with the process used in developing metrics for ISO/RTO markets,
Commission staff has worked with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
and its members to develop a set of performance metrics for regions
outside of ISOs and RTOs. Commission staff, along with EEI and its
members, met with interested stakeholders to solicit their perspectives
and comments on the proposed performance metrics. These metrics are
based on the metrics previously selected in Docket No. AD10-5, but have
been tailored to fit markets outside of ISOs and RTOs. We expect that
those entities that decide to provide information in response to the
final metrics developed in this proceeding will provide data and
explain performance trends in a manner consistent with the responses
provided by the ISOs and RTOs in Docket No. AD10-5.
    Commission staff requests comments on whether the proposed
performance metrics (attached) will effectively track the performance
of markets outside of ISOs and RTOs. Comments must be filed on or
before May 1, 2012. Reply comments must be filed on or before May 16,
2012.
    Addresses: Parties may submit comments, identified by Docket No.
AD12-08-000, by one of the following methods.
    Agency Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/ gov/. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments via the eFiling link found under the ``Documents
and Filing'' tab.
    Mail: Those unable to file comments electronically may mail or
hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    For Further Information Contact: Jeffrey Hitchings, Office of
Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen J. Hug, Office of the
General Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Information Collection Statement

    The following collection of information contained in these proposed
metrics is subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\1\ OMB's regulations require approval
of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
actions.\2\ The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need
for this information, whether the information will have practical
utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or
retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden,
including the use of automated information techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006). The Paperwork Reduction Act requires
OMB approval of certain information collection activities when these
activities apply to 10 or more persons. Because it is estimated that
11 entities will respond to this collection the Commission is
requesting approval from OMB.
    \2\ 5 CFR part 1320 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed collection of information requires those public
utilities outside of ISOs and RTOs that choose to participate to
provide information responding to the attached metrics on a periodic
basis. This includes the submission of price data and information
relating to reliability, transmission planning, requests for service,
and system capacity. The information submitted by participating
utilities would be used to help develop a common set of metrics for
both ISO/RTO markets and non-RTO/ISO markets, and for evaluating market
performance thereafter.
    Burden Estimate: The additional estimated public reporting burdens
for the proposed reporting requirements in this rule are as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of         Number of      Average burden
         FERC-922  requirements              respondents      responses per       hours per       Total annual
                                              annually         respondent         response        burden hours
                                                       (1)               (2)               (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrics Data Collection.................                11                 1                80               880
Write Performance Analysis..............                11                 1                60               660
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ................  ................  ................             1,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that it will take, on average, one technical analyst
two weeks to collect the data to respond to the metrics. We also
estimate that it will take one technical analyst one week to write a
report responding to the metrics and it will take one manager
approximately 20 hours to review the report.
    Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the cost of compliance
to be $106,920.
    Technical Expertise = $89,760 (880 hours data collection + 440
hours report completion @ $68 per hour).
    Management Review = $17,160 (220 hours report review @ $78 per
hour).
    Cost per hour figures are calculated using Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) data.\3\ The technical expertise category factors in
the median wage for an engineer, analyst, attorney and economist. The
management category factors in the median wage for general and
operations managers. Based on BLS data,\4\ both cost figures have been
adjusted to include benefits (benefits represent 29.5% of the total
hourly figure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_221100.htm#(3).
    \4\ See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-922, Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics.
    Action: Proposed Collection.
    OMB Control No. TBD.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed metrics
and has determined that the metrics and data gathered thereunder 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments on the collections of information and the associated burden
estimates in this proceeding should be sent to the Commission in this
docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should include
Docket Number AD12-08-000 and FERC-922.

    Dated: February 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Attachment

          Proposed Performance Metrics for Non-ISO/RTO Regions
          [Based on ISO/RTO metrics from Docket No. AD10-5-000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Performance metric                   Specific metric(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Reliability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. National or Regional             1. References to which Electricity
 Reliability Standards Compliance.   Reliability Organization (ERO) and
                                     Regional Reliability Organization
                                     (RRO) standards are applicable.
                                    2. Number of violations self-
                                     reported and made public by NERC/
                                     FERC.
                                    3. Number of violations identified
                                     and made public as RRO or ERO audit
                                     findings.
                                    4. Total number of violations made
                                     public by NERC/FERC.
                                    5. Severity level of each violation
                                     made public by NERC/FERC.

                                    6. Compliance with operating reserve
                                     standards.
                                    7. Unserved energy (or load
                                     shedding) caused by violations.
                                     Additional detail will be provided
                                     on (1) number of events; (2)
                                     duration of the events; (3) whether
                                     the events occurred during on/off-
                                     peak hours; and (4) additional
                                     information on equipment types
                                     affected and kV of lines affected.
                                    Items 2-7: Track the ISO/RTO
                                     definition: ``This metric is a
                                     quantification of all NERC and RRO
                                     Reliability Standards violations
                                     that have been identified during an
                                     audit or as a result of an ISO/RTO
                                     self-report and have been published
                                     as part of that process.''
                                    Non-ISO/RTO utilities should limit
                                     reporting to the same eight
                                     functional areas used by the ISO/
                                     RTOs:
                                       1. Balancing Authority.
                                       2. Interchange Authority.
                                       3. Planning Authority.
                                       4. Reliability Coordinator.
                                       5. Resource Planner.
                                       6. Transmission Operator.
                                       7. Transmission Planner.
                                       8. Transmission Service Provider.
B. Dispatch Reliability...........  1. Balance Authority Ace Limit
                                     (BAAL) OR// CPS1 and CPS2.
                                    2. Number of events of transmission
                                     load reliefs (of severity level 3
                                     or higher) called by the incumbent
                                     transmission provider or
                                     unscheduled flows.
                                        WECC entities will
                                        report events under the WECC
                                        Unscheduled Flow Mitigation
                                        Procedure (equivalent to the
                                        NERC TLR Level three).
                                    3. Energy Management System (EMS)
                                     availability.
C. Operational Planning--Load       Actual peak load as a percentage
 Forecast Accuracy.                  variance from forecasted peak load
                                     as reported in OASIS.
D. Wind Forecasting Accuracy......  Actual wind availability compared to
                                     forecasted wind availability.
E. Unscheduled Flows..............  Difference between net actual
                                     interchange (actual measured power
                                     flow in real time) and the net
                                     scheduled interchange in megawatt
                                     hours.
                                        Reported in Form 714.
F. Transmission Outage              Report information posted on OASIS
 Coordination.                       (percentage of outages, planned and
                                     unplanned, with less than 2 days
                                     notice).
G. Long-Term Reliability Planning-- 1. Dollar amount of facilities
 Transmission.                       approved to be constructed for
                                     reliability purposes.
                                    2. Percentage of approved
                                     construction completed.
                                    3. Performance of planning process
                                     related to:
                                       a. Requests for and number of
                                        completed reliability studies.
                                       b. Narrative detailing economic
                                        studies process.
                                    Discussion of stakeholder process
                                     and identification of stakeholder
                                     groups participating.
H. Long-Term Reliability Planning-- 1. Processing time for generation
 Resources.                          interconnection requests.
                                    2. Planned reserve margins.
                                    3. Explanation of the nature and
                                     characteristics of demand response
                                     programs and how they are used in
                                     system planning.
I. Infrastructure Investment--      1. Number of requests.
 Interconnection and Transmission   2. Number of studies completed.
 Process Metrics.                   3-5. Total cost and types of studies
                                     completed (e.g., feasibility study,
                                     system impact study and facility
                                     study).
                                    6. Number of transmission access
                                     denials/transmission service
                                     requests (TSRs) denied.
J. Special Protection Systems.....  1. Number of special protection
                                     systems.
                                    2. Percentage of special protection
                                     systems that responded as designed
                                     when activated.
                                        Applicable pool of
                                        special protection systems
                                        should be based on how the
                                        reporting entity's Regional
                                        Entity defines ``special
                                        protection systems.''
                                    3. Number of unintended activations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       System Operations Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Demand Response................  Comprehensive explanation of the
                                     nature of utility demand response
                                     programs implemented for load
                                     management as well as in compliance
                                     with state requirements.
B. System Lambda..................  System Lambda (on marginal unit).
                                        Proposed System Lambda
                                        metric would not apply to
                                        utilities where the marginal
                                        price is typically set by hydro
                                        units.
                                        System lambda data will
                                        be based on Form 714
                                        information.
C. Congestion Management..........  Congestion analysis per Order No.
                                     890.
D. Resource Availability..........  System forced outage rate as
                                     measured over 12 months.
E. Transmission System              Interrupted load megawatt hours as a
 Availability.                       percentage of load served.
F. Fuel Diversity.................  Fuel diversity in terms of energy,
                                     installed capacity and actual
                                     production.
G. Clean Energy...................  1. Clean Energy megawatt hours, by
                                     resource type, as a percentage of
                                     total energy.
                                    2. Clean Energy megawatts, by
                                     resource type, as a percentage of
                                     total capacity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Organizational Effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Not applicable to non-RTO
 entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-5004 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P