58112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1Promoting Wholesale Competition Through 

Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission 

Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded 

Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, 

Order No. 888, 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31.036 (1996), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 888–A, 62 FR 12,274 (March 14, 1977), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 888–B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 888–C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in 

relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy 

Study Group, et al. v. 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), 

aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 

(2002).

2Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 

2000, 65 FR 809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & 

Regs., ¶ 31,089 (1999), order on reh’g, Order No. 

2000–A, 65 FR 12,088 (March 8, 2000), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,092 (2000), affirmed sub nom. Public 

Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, 

Washington, et al. v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 

2001).

3 ISOs and RTOs are, in many respects, similar, 

with one major difference being that RTOs must 

meet more stringent independence and scope and 

configuration standards.

4RTO West (now Grid West), WestConnect, 

GridFlorida, GridSouth, and SeTrans.

Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, Docket 2002–NM–257–AD, 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34096), is 

withdrawn.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 20, 2004. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21817 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 35, 41, 101, 141 

[Docket No. RM04–12–000] 

Financial Reporting and Cost 

Accounting, Oversight and Recovery 

Practices for Regional Transmission 

Organizations and Independent 

System Operators 

September 16, 2004.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

inviting comments on its accounting 

and financial reporting requirements for 

and oversight of regional transmission 

organization (RTO) and independent 

system operator (ISO) costs.

DATES: Comments on this NOI are due 

on November 4, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed 

electronically via the eFiling link on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov. Commentors unable to 

file comments electronically must send 

an original and 14 copies of their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. Refer to the Procedure for 

Comments section of the preamble for 

additional information on how to file 

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hegerle (Technical Information), 

Office of Markets, Tariffs & Rates—

Central, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8287, Mark.Hegerle@ferc.gov.

Mark Klose (Accounting Information), 

Office of Executive Director—

Regulatory Accounting Policy 

Division, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

8283, Mark.Klose@ferc.gov. 

Lodie White (Legal Information), Office 

of General Counsel—Markets, Tariffs 

& Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–

6193, Lodie.White@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Inquiry 

Introduction 

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) is issuing 

this Notice of Inquiry to seek comments 

on its accounting and financial 

reporting requirements for and oversight 

of regional transmission organization 

(RTO) and independent system operator 

(ISO) costs. Specifically, the 

Commission is undertaking a review of:

(a) Whether changes are needed to the 

Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for 

Public Utilities and Licensees Subject to the 

Provisions of the Federal Power Act (USofA), 

(18 CFR part 101), to better account and 

report RTO and ISO financial information to 

the Commission, in order to provide greater 

transparency of transactions and business 

functions affecting these entities and their 

member transmission-owning public utilities; 

(b) Whether RTOs and ISOs have 

appropriate incentives to be cost efficient; 

and 

(c) Whether the Commission’s rate review 

methods for RTOs and ISOs are sufficient.

Background 

2. In Order No. 888,1 the Commission 

encouraged but did not require the 

formation of ISOs—independent entities 

that administer regional transmission 

tariffs and control the transmission 

facilities of their member transmissionowning utilities. Rather, Order No. 888 

delineated eleven principles defining 

the operations and structure of a 

properly functioning ISO. Likewise, in 

Order No. 2000,2 the Commission 

encouraged utilities to voluntarily join 

RTOs, and detailed certain functions an 

RTO must perform and characteristics 

that an RTO should have.3 However, in 

neither rule did the Commission 

promulgate specific accounting rules or 

rate review principles for the new 

entities. The Commission instead chose 

to rely on existing rules and policies 

applicable to traditional public utilities, 

i.e., principally investor-owned utilities 

(IOUs).

3. Over the past seven years, 

beginning in 1997, the Commission 

issued a series of orders approving 

several ISOs and RTOs which have 

since commenced operations. PJM 

Interconnection, LLC (PJM), ISO New 

England, Inc. (ISO–NE), and Midwest 

Independent Transmission System 

Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) were first 

approved (or conditionally approved) as 

ISOs and later as RTOs; New York 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

(NYISO) and California Independent 

System Operator, Inc. (CAISO) were 

approved as ISOs. The Commission has 

also conditionally approved Southwest 

Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), which currently 

operates a regional transmission tariff, 

as an RTO. The Commission also 

conditionally approved a number of 

other RTOs and ISOs which have not 

commenced operations.4

4. Each of these entities developed 

independent of one another, using 

somewhat different business models, 

software, accounting methods, and rate 

designs to accomplish the same ultimate 

goal of providing open-access (nondiscriminatory) regional transmission 

service. In addition, some of these 

entities administer centrally-dispatched, 

competitive energy markets. These 

differences have made comparisons 

between entities difficult and raised 

questions concerning the Commission’s 

current accounting and financial 

reporting rules and our current rate 

review practices for RTOs and ISOs. 

5. Nevertheless there are similarities 

among RTOs and ISOs as well. Each 

RTO/ISO administers a regional 

transmission tariff and performs system 

monitoring and planning, as well as 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58113

5For example, Order No. 2000 noted one entity’s 

observation that there may be transmission 

functions performed by individual company control 

centers, within existing control areas, or within 

existing reliability councils, that may be better and/

or more efficiently performed by an RTO.

6A market participant is defined in relevant part 

as any entity that, either directly or through an 

affiliate, sells or brokers electric energy, or provides 

ancillary services to the RTO or any other entity 

(e.g., a member transmission-owning utility), which 

has economic or commercial interests that would be 

significantly affected by the RTO’s actions or 

decisions. See 18 CFR 35.34(b)(2) (2004).

7One exception is that PJM earns money for its 

members when it sells software and technology to 

other transmission providers. Nevertheless, like the 

other RTOs, PJM does not have shareholders and 

passes through all of its costs of operation to its 

market participants.

8Midwest Independent Transmission System 

Operator, 101 FERC ¶ 61,221 at P 35 (2002), order 

on reh’g, 103 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2003).

9See 18 CFR Part 101.

10The Commission has explained that RTOs and 

ISOs are public utilities, and as such, they are 

required to follow the USofA and file Form No. 1. 

See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. et al., 107 FERC 

¶ 61,087 (2004).

11NYISO also has separate charges for 

unbudgeted costs, and start-up and formation costs.

12The costs incurred by the RTO/ISO are tied to 

the services it performs on behalf of its market 

participants. The RTO/ISO would not, therefore, 

take an additional functions without an approving 

vote of its advisory committee or a directive by the 

Commission.

13 15 U.S.C. 824d (2000).

transmission scheduling—functions that 

formerly were performed by the 

transmission-owning utilities that now 

take transmission service under the 

RTO’s or ISO’s tariff. While there may 

be some needed redundancy with 

respect to certain functions, such as 

system reliability monitoring, because 

an RTO/ISO, with its regional focus and 

reach, takes over certain functions 

previously performed by the 

transmission-owning public utilities, 

ratepayers should, over time, expect to 

see economic synergies resulting from 

the formation of RTOs.5

Differences Between RTOs and InvestorOwned Utilities 

6. There are several significant 

differences between RTOs/ISOs and 

vertically integrated public utilities. As 

noted above, each RTO/ISO offers 

transmission service over a wide region 

of the country, covering multiple IOU 

and other transmission systems. Many 

also run energy markets and congestion 

management systems through central 

dispatch of the generation located in 

their footprint. However, unlike IOUs, 

RTOs and ISOs do not own the 

transmission and generation facilities 

under their control. In fact, they are 

required to be independent from any 

market participant.6

7. RTO and ISO costs are largely 

associated with sophisticated system 

control and communications hardware 

and software designed to oversee the 

transmission grid, and, for many, to run 

energy markets, congestion management 

systems, and transmission scheduling 

systems. In contrast, an IOU’s costs are 

dominated by the costs of generation, 

transmission, and distribution facilities. 

8. In addition, because RTOs/ISOs 

provide transmission service and may 

operate wholesale markets, they do not 

provide retail electric service, and, 

therefore, fall under the exclusive 

jurisdiction of the Commission. This 

means that RTOs and ISOs, unlike 

vertically integrated IOUs, are not 

subject to direct oversight by state 

commissions. 

9. Moreover, while the Commission 

has not mandated any particular 

business model for RTOs and ISOs, all 

current RTOs and ISOs are not-for-profit 

entities.7 Each RTO and ISO is required 

to have an independent board of 

directors and to consult with an 

advisory committee made up of all 

classes of market participants prior to 

taking action. However, the advisory 

committee has no ability to block an 

action of the RTO/ISO; it can only offer 

non-binding advice on budget and other 

matters. Moreover, with for-profit 

entities, shareholders face a risk of 

lower earnings if costs are found to be 

imprudent and ineligible for rate 

recovery. The not-for-profit status of 

RTOs/ISOs makes cost review more 

difficult. As the Commission has 

previously observed, with respect to one 

of these RTOs, ‘‘Midwest ISO’s nonprofit status complicates a prudence 

review after the costs are incurred.’’ 8

Current RTO Accounting, Financial 

Reporting and Cost Recovery Practices 

10. Despite their differences, RTOs/

ISOs are public utilities under the 

Federal Power Act and, like traditional 

public utilities, must follow the USofA.9

However, the USofA was developed for 

traditional public utilities, i.e., public 

utilities that provide electric generation, 

transmission, and distribution service. 

The accounting rules contained in the 

USofA provide for capturing financial 

information along these primary 

functional business lines.10 However, 

meaningful functional business 

segments or service lines for RTOs and 

ISOs seem quite different. Meaningful 

business lines for RTOs might include 

‘‘grid reliability,’’ ‘‘ancillary services,’’

or ‘‘energy markets,’’ to suggest a few 

possibilities. But because RTOs use the 

Commission’s existing USofA to capture 

and classify costs, their financial 

statements and other reports prepared 

from their accounting records may not 

provide sufficient information about 

their costs and the relationship to 

services provided or other business 

activities.

11. Likewise, the current USofA may 

not provide sufficient transparency with 

respect to changes in RTO- and ISOmember transmission-owning public 

utilities’ costs to reflect that the RTO/

ISO is performing all or a portion of 

certain functions that were previously 

performed by the transmission-owning 

utilities. 

12. Differences also exist among 

RTOs/ISOs with respect to operations, 

rate design, and accepted rate review 

methodologies. For example, RTOs/

ISOs, while progressing at differing 

paces, perform similar functions with 

respect to overseeing the transmission 

grid and running markets. However, 

rather than building on the work of 

others, each RTO/ISO has developed, or 

contracted with vendors to develop, 

proprietary software to run its complex 

systems. The cost of each RTO’s/ISO’s 

software package, while largely 

designed to do similar tasks, varied 

considerably. 

13. With respect to rate design 

differences, as an example, NYISO has 

just one charge to recover all of its costs 

to administer its transmission tariff, 

energy markets, and congestion 

management system, including its 

auction of transmission congestion 

contracts (comparable to firm 

transmission rights (FTRs)).11 However, 

ISO–NE and Midwest ISO have three 

charges, PJM five, and CAISO seven to 

recover comparable costs. Some use 

formula rates with true-ups; others 

calculate stated rates for the following 

calendar year. There are also differences 

among the RTOs/ISOs with respect to 

the billing determinants used to 

calculate similar charges.

14. RTOs/ISOs develop their 

proposed rates through a collaborative 

process with their respective advisory 

committee processes. In general, the 

RTO/ISO determines the cost side of the 

equation based on the level of 

expenditures budgeted to accomplish 

the RTO’s/ISO’s functions,12 and works 

with its stakeholders through the 

advisory committee process to arrive at 

a proposed allocation methodology, 

which is filed with the Commission 

(under section 205 of the FPA).13 The 

Commission has largely relied on each 

advisory committee process as a check 

on RTO expenditures and has focused 

primarily on the review of the cost 

allocation and rate design 

methodologies. In addition, the 

Commission required one RTO, 

58114 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

14See, e.g., Midwest Independent Transmission 

System Operator, 101 FERC ¶ 61,221 (2002), order 

on reh’g, 103 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2003)

15 Id., 101 FERC ¶ 61,221 at P 36.

Midwest ISO, to file its annual budget 

and progress reports on expenditures 

related to market development for 

informational purposes.14 The 

Commission reasoned that the 

informational filings would ‘‘provide a 

sufficient opportunity to review and 

compare the proposed costs with the 

actual costs and allow the Commission 

to monitor Midwest ISO’s cost 

containment efforts.’’ 15

15. Nevertheless, in all cases, RTOs/

ISOs are typically allowed recovery of 

all expenditures; they do not absorb 

losses and instead pass through all costs 

that they incur (e.g., NYISO has a 

separate charge for unbudgeted 

expenses; Midwest ISO’s Schedule 10 

charge, while capped at $0.15/MWh, 

allows for the deferral, with interest, of 

any costs which would cause the rate to 

exceed the cap during one period to be 

recovered during a later period when 

actual costs for that period are less than 

the capped rate). 

The Subject of the Notice of Inquiry 

16. The Commission wants to explore 

whether changes to RTO/ISO 

accounting, financial reporting, and cost 

recovery practices are necessary to 

ensure the rates charged by RTOs/ISOs 

and their member transmission-owning 

public utilities are just and reasonable. 

Rate review mechanisms, including the 

accounting and financial reporting 

requirements contained in quarterly and 

annual financial reports applicable to 

traditional public utilities may no 

longer be sufficiently descriptive to 

reflect RTO/ISO operations due to their 

structure and business functions. 

Secondarily, current financial reporting 

by RTOs/ISOs and their member 

transmission-owning public utilities 

owners may not provide the 

Commission and others sufficient 

transparency of financial trends and 

emerging issues. 

17. As noted above, the Commission’s 

expectation has been that the RTO/ISO 

would spend only for the benefit of its 

market participants. The RTO/ISO 

looked to stakeholders for advice on 

whether to pursue particular tariff or 

market design changes which, of course, 

would necessitate agreement on 

spending to bring those changes to 

fruition. However, RTO/ISO 

stakeholders (including member 

transmission-owning utilities) have 

alleged in various forums that this 

process provides an insufficient check, 

noting that they only see the budget 

after it is finalized and they have no 

veto power. In this regard, member 

transmission-owning utilities subject to 

state commission regulation complain 

that the absence of sufficient oversight 

of RTO/ISO spending results in their 

being forced to justify before their state 

commissions the prudence of RTO/ISO 

expenditures. 

Questions for Response 

18. The Commission encourages any 

and all comments regarding the topics 

broadly discussed above. In addition the 

Commission seeks responses to the 

following specific questions:

A. Accounting and Financial Reporting 

Issues for RTOs/ISOs 

1. Are the individual account descriptions 

and instructions under the existing USofA 

adequate for the functions typically 

performed by RTOs/ISOs? If not, what 

changes should be made to the account 

descriptions and instructions under the 

existing USofA to accommodate the RTO/ISO 

business model? Are the changes so 

extensive that an entirely separate USofA 

should be developed to accommodate RTOs/

ISOs? 

2. Under the existing USofA costs are 

accounted for as electric production, 

transmission, distribution or general plant. 

What other accounts and functional 

classifications should be provided for RTO/

ISO transactions and events? For example, 

are additional revenue, expense or detailed 

fixed asset accounts needed? 

3. Should the Commission develop a new 

financial reporting format for the functions 

typically performed by RTOs/ISOs? If so 

what financial information and financialrelated information should be reported? If 

not, how may the existing annual and 

quarterly financial reports be changed or 

modified to report relevant RTO/ISO 

transactions and events? 

4. Is additional accounting and financial 

reporting guidance needed for market 

operation and market monitoring functions of 

RTOs/ISOs? If so what transactions and 

events require additional accounting and 

financial reporting guidance? 

5. Is there sufficient detailed financial and 

financial-related information being provided 

to users of RTO/ISO data? If not, what 

additional information would the users of the 

information find helpful and why? For 

example, if detailed information technology 

cost data is necessary, would it also be 

helpful for the RTO/ISO to include the cost 

driver of the data (e.g., quantity of desktop 

computers in relationship to the number of 

employees)? 

6. Currently the quarterly and annual 

Commission financial reports include a 

schedule that requires respondents to report 

data concerning the transmission of 

electricity for others. Should RTOs/ISOs 

report transmission of electric for others for 

its Commission-jurisdictional members or 

should those individual members report the 

information in their individual filings? If the 

RTO/ISO should report the information, what 

information should be reported and how 

should it be shown in the filing? 

B. Accounting and Financial Reporting Issues 

for Public Utilities and Licensees That Are 

Members of an RTO/ISO 

1. Are the individual account descriptions 

and instructions under the existing USofA 

useful and applicable for classifying revenues 

received from RTOs/ISOs? If not, what 

changes should be made to the account 

descriptions and instructions under the 

existing USofA to accommodate these 

transactions and events?

2. Are the individual account descriptions 

and instructions under the existing USofA 

useful and applicable for classifying costs 

related to providing various services such as 

ancillary services, energy markets, or costs 

associated with transmission congestion? If 

not, what changes should be made to the 

existing USofA to accommodate these 

transactions and events? 

3. What additional detailed information 

should be collected or disclosed in the 

quarterly and annual Commission financial 

reports of individual utilities to provide 

greater transparency of RTO transactions and 

events? 

4. What additional disclosures should be 

made in the quarterly and annual 

Commission financial reports of individual 

utilities to describe the economic effects 

resulting from the respondent transmitting 

public utility participating in an RTO? 

5. Does the Commission’s USofA and 

existing financial reporting requirements for 

public utility members of RTO/ISOs provide 

regulators with adequate information to 

clearly identify which functions are 

performed by the RTO/ISO and which are 

performed by the member transmissionowning public utilities, and to ensure that 

costs are not being double recovered through 

either Commission-jurisdictional or statejurisdictional rates? Are they adequate to 

determine how RTO/ISO costs billed to 

public utility members should enter into the 

determination of retail rates? If not, what 

changes to the Commission’s accounting and 

reporting rules should be made? 

C. Cost Management 

1. Do not-for-profit RTOs/ISOs currently 

have the appropriate incentives to contain 

costs? If not, what are the right incentives 

(and why would they be the right incentives) 

and how should they be implemented? 

2. Should the Commission revisit the 

means by which RTO/ISO rates are reviewed, 

particularly with respect to cost incurrence? 

If so, what means should the Commission 

employ to ensure that RTOs’/ISOs’

expenditures are prudent and their rates are 

just and reasonable? Would a ‘‘best 

practices’’ or ‘‘benchmark’’ approach, where 

one RTO/ISO’s expenditures in a particular 

cost category are measured against those of 

other RTOs/ISOs, be sufficient? 

3. What is the appropriate role for the 

Commission with respect to overseeing RTO/

ISO software costs? Should an RTO/ISO be 

required to justify contracting for the 

development of new software rather than 

using or modifying ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ software 

developed for a comparable application for or 

by another RTO/ISO? To what extent would 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58115

the use of standardized or at least compatible 

software in neighboring RTO/ISO markets 

reduce the cost of doing business across 

RTO/ISO boundaries? How would any such 

standardization be accomplished? 

4. To what degree should an RTO/ISO’s 

stakeholder/advisory committee be involved 

in reviewing or shaping the RTO/ISO’s 

budget and spending decisions? Are there 

independence considerations that should 

prevent or limit such review by market 

participants? 

5. Should the Commission allow 

differences between RTOs/ISOs with regard 

to cost allocation and rate design to recover 

the operation and capital costs for each of 

their functions (e.g., tariff administration and 

markets for energy, ancillary service, and 

FTRs)? If so, how should the various rates be 

designed, i.e., what are the correct billing 

determinants for each service? 

6. Should the compensation of senior RTO/

ISO management be linked to specific 

performance measures, including cost 

reductions?

Procedure for Comments 

19. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments, and other 

information on the matters, issues and 

specific questions identified in this 

notice. Comments are due November 4, 

2004. Comments must refer to Docket 

No. RM04–12–000, and must include 

the commentor’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address. 

20. To facilitate the Commission’s 

review of the comments, commentors 

are requested to provide an executive 

summary of their position. Commentors 

are requested to identify each specific 

question posed by the NOI that their 

discussion addresses and to use 

appropriate headings. Additional issues 

the commentors wish to raise should be 

identified separately. The commentors 

should double space their comments. 

21. Comments may be filed on paper 

or electronically via the eFiling link on 

the Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov . The Commission accepts 

most standard word processing formats 

and commentors may attach additional 

files with supporting information in 

certain other file formats. Commentors 

filing electronically do not need to make 

a paper filing. Commentors that are not 

able to file comments electronically 

must send an original and 14 copies of 

their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

22. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commentors 

are not required to serve copies of their 

comments on other commentors. 

Document Availability 

23. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov ) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 

24. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the Internet, this information is 

available in the Commission’s document 

management system, 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) in the 

docket number field. 

25. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours. For 

assistance, please contact the 

Commission’s Online Support at 1–866–

208–3676 (toll free) or 202–502–6652 (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or 

the Public Reference Room at 202–502–

8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov)

By direction of the Commission. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–21760 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a 

Petition To List the Western Gray 

Squirrel as Endangered Rangewide

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding for a petition to list the 

western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) 

as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. We 

find the petition does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing this 

species may be warranted.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 29, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, 

comments or questions concerning this 

petition should be sent to the Manager, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, 

Lacey, WA 98503. The petition finding, 

supporting data, and comments are 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

L. Karolee Owens (see ADDRESSES

section), telephone 360/753–4369, 

facsimile 360/753–4369.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

This finding is to be based on all 

information contained in the petition 

and available in our files at the time the 

finding is made. 

Our standard for substantial 

information with regard to a 90-day 

petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If the 

finding is that substantial information 

was presented, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species, unless a status 

review has previously been initiated. 

Petition 

On December 24, 2002, we received a 

petition dated December 19, 2002, from 

the Institute for Wildlife Protection 

(IWP). The petition was submitted as a 

comment to our request for public 

comments in a 90-day finding for a 

petition to list the Washington 

population of one of the subspecies of 

the western gray squirrel (Sciurus 

griseus griseus) as threatened or 

endangered. The petitioner provided a 

comment letter-petition to list the 

western gray squirrel rangewide and 

two attachments. The petitioner 

requested that we consider listing the 

western gray squirrel as endangered 

throughout its range and evaluate ‘‘any 

DPS’s (distinct population segments) 

and subspecies’’ of the western gray 

squirrel throughout its range. The 

petitioner did not provide any