11278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

2Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. For further 

explanation of what is included in the information 

collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3. 

3Commission staff estimates that the industry’s 

skill set and cost (for wages and benefits) for FERC– 

725U are approximately the same as the 

Commission’s average cost. The FERC 2020 average 

salary plus benefits for one FERC full-time 

equivalent (FTE) is $172,329/year (or $83.00/hour). 

4The total number of transmission owners and 

operators equals 336, this represents the unique US 

entities taken from October 2, 2020 NERC 

Compliance registry information. 

create or maintain documentation 

showing compliance, when appropriate, 

with each requirement of the Reliability 

Standard. This Reliability Standard 

CIP–014–2 has six requirements. 

Transmission owners and transmission 

operators must keep data or evidence to 

show compliance with the standard for 

three years unless directed by its 

Compliance Enforcement Authority. If a 

responsible entity is found noncompliant, it must keep information 

related to the non-compliance until 

mitigation is complete and approved, or 

for three years, whichever is longer. 

Type of Respondents: Intrastate 

natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines. 

Estimate of Annual Burden 2 and 

Cost 3: The Commission estimates the 

total Public Reporting Burden for the 

FERC–725U information collection as: 

FERC–725U 

[Mandatory reliability standards: Reliability standard CIP–014] 

Number of 

respondents 4

Annual 

number of 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Total number 

of 

responses 

Average burden 

hours & cost 

per response 

Total annual burden 

hours & total annual 

cost 

Average 

annual 

cost per 

respondent 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 

Annual Reporting and 

Recordkeeping.

336 1 336 32.71 hrs.; $2,714.93 .. 10,991 hrs.; $912,253 $2,714,93 

Total FERC–725U 336 1 336 32.71 hrs.; $2,714.93 .. 10,991 hrs.; $912,253 $2,714.93 

Comments: Comments are invited on: 

(1) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden and cost of the collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility 

and clarity of the information collection; 

and (4) ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Dated: February 18, 2021. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03802 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 3409–032] 

Boyne USA, Inc.; Notice of Intent To 

Prepare an Environmental Assessment 

On January 31, 2020, Boyne USA, Inc. 

filed an application for a subsequent 

minor license to continue operating the 

existing, licensed, 250-kilowatt Boyne 

River Hydroelectric Project No. 3409 

(Boyne River Project). The project is 

located on the Boyne River in Boyne 

Valley Township, Charlevoix County, 

Michigan. The project does not occupy 

federal land. 

In accordance with the Commission’s 

regulations, on November 24, 2020, 

Commission staff issued a notice that 

the project was ready for environmental 

analysis (REA notice). Based on the 

information in the record, including 

comments filed on the REA notice, staff 

does not anticipate that licensing the 

project would constitute a major federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. Therefore, 

staff intends to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) on the 

application to license the Boyne River 

Project. 

The EA will be issued and circulated 

for review by all interested parties. All 

comments filed on the EA will be 

analyzed by staff and considered in the 

Commission’s final licensing decision. 

The application will be processed 

according to the following schedule. 

Revisions to the schedule may be made 

as appropriate. 

Milestone Target date 

Commission issues EA .................. June 2021.1

Milestone Target date 

Comments on EA .......................... July 2021. 

1The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) 

regulations under 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(1) require that 

EAs be completed within 1 year of the federal action 

agency’s decision to prepare an EA. This notice establishes the Commission’s intent to prepare an EA 

for the Boyne River Project. Therefore, in accordance 

with CEQ’s regulations, the EA must be issued within 

1 year of the issuance date of this notice. 

Any questions regarding this notice 

may be directed to Patrick Ely at 

patrick.ely@ferc.gov or (202) 502–8570. 

Dated: February 18, 2021. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03801 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. AD21–6–000; AD20–6–000] 

RTO/ISO Credit Principles and 

Practices; Credit Reforms in Organized 

Wholesale Electric Markets 

Supplemental Notice of Technical 

Conference 

As first announced in the Notice of 

Technical Conference issued in this 

proceeding on November 4, 2020, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) will convene a staff-led 

technical conference in the above 

referenced proceeding on Thursday, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11279 

1Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric 

Markets, Order No. 741, 133 FERC ¶ 61,060 (2010), 

order on reh’g, Order No. 741–A, 134 FERC ¶ 61,126 

(2011), reh’g denied, Order No. 741–B, 135 FERC 

¶ 61,242 (2011). 

February 25, 2021 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 

p.m. and Friday, February 26, 2021 from 

9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The 

conference will be held electronically 

and broadcast on the Commission’s 

website. Commissioners may attend and 

participate. This conference will discuss 

principles and best practices for credit 

risk management in organized 

wholesale electric markets. 

We note that discussions at the 

conference may involve issues raised in 

proceedings that are currently pending 

before the Commission. These 

proceedings include, but are not limited 

to: 

DC Energy, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C., Docket No. EL18–170; 

Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., 

Docket No. EL20–49; 

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. 

ER21–520; 

ISO New England Inc., New England 

Power Pool Participants Committee, 

Docket No. ER21–816; 

Midcontinent Independent System 

Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER21–920. 

Attached to this Supplemental Notice 

is an agenda for the technical 

conference, which includes the final 

conference program and speakers. The 

conference will be open for the public 

to attend. Registration for the conference 

is not required, however members of the 

public may preregister online at: https:// 

ferc.webex.com/ferc/onstage/ 

g.php?MTID=e2b36f2a0411532188b8

cd973144668ff. Anyone who registers 

by Monday, February 22, 2021 will be 

given instructions on how to access the 

event. Information on the technical 

conference will also be posted on the 

Calendar of Events on the Commission’s 

website, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to 

the event. The conference will be 

transcribed. Transcripts of the 

conference will be available for a fee 

from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202– 

347–3700). 

For more information about this 

technical conference, please contact: 

Michael Hill (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, (202) 502–8703, 

Michael.Hill@ferc.gov. 

Sarah McKinley (Logistical 

Information), Office of External 

Affairs, (202) 502–8004, 

Sarah.Mckinley@ferc.gov. 

Dated: February 10, 2021. . 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

RTO/ISO Credit Principles and 

Practices Technical Conference 

Docket Nos. AD21–6–000 and AD20–6– 

000 

February 25–26, 2021 

Agenda and Speakers 

Day 1—Thursday, February 25, 2021 

9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.: Welcome and 

Opening Remarks 

9:15 a.m.–10:45 a.m.: Panel 1: Credit 

Principles and Practices in RTO/ 

ISO Markets 

Scott Miller, Principal, Whitehall Bay 

Energy Services 

Bob Wasserman, Chief Counsel, 

Division of Clearing and Risk, U.S. 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 

Vince Kaminski, Professor in the 

Practice of Energy, Rice University 

Geoffrey Harris, Knowledge Leader II, 

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

Erik Heinle, Assistant People’s 

Counsel, Office of the People’s 

Counsel for the District of Columbia 

Ted Thomas, Chairman, Arkansas 

Public Service Commission 

This panel will explore the 

fundamental principles underlying 

credit risk management and the 

panelists’ understanding of how those 

principles are applied within RTO/ISO 

markets. Panelists will discuss how 

credit risk is managed and regulated in 

other industries and whether any best 

practices can be applied to the RTO/ISO 

markets. This panel will also discuss the 

RTO/ISO credit policy requirements set 

forth in Order No. 741 1 and whether 

there is a need for the Commission to 

update those requirements. The panel 

may include a discussion of the 

following topics and questions: 

1. What is credit risk and who bears 

the credit risk in RTO/ISO markets? 

How can RTOs/ISOs better understand 

and minimize the credit risk that their 

market participants pose? 

2. What are the key components of an 

effective credit policy? What principles 

and best practices of credit risk 

management are applicable to RTO/ISO 

markets? 

3. What impact has Order No. 741 had 

in reducing credit risk? Are there 

aspects of credit policy beyond those 

addressed by Order No. 741 which 

should be explored? Are there areas 

where the Commission can and should 

provide additional guidance or 

regulations to mitigate credit risk? 

4. What types of credit structures or 

market designs (in terms of moving 

some products to financial exchanges or 

central clearing parties, increasing 

mark-to-market frequency, collateral 

practices, liquidity) could be set up to 

reduce the likelihood that nondefaulting market participants bear the 

costs of a market participant defaulting? 

How would such structures or designs 

affect participants’ access to the 

markets? 

10:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m.: Break 

11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.: Panel 2: RTO/ 

ISO Comparison of Risk 

Management Structure, Credit 

Enhancements and Lessons Learned 

Ryan Seghesio, Vice President, Chief 

Financial Officer and Treasurer, 

California ISO 

Scott Smith, Director of Treasury and 

Risk Management, Southwest Power 

Pool 

Melissa Brown, Senior Vice President 

and Chief Financial Officer, 

Midcontinent ISO 

Nigeria Bloczynski, Chief Risk Officer, 

PJM Interconnection, LLC 

Sheri Prevratil, Manager of Corporate 

Credit, New York ISO 

This panel will compare and contrast 

the risk management structures, credit 

practices, and recent credit 

enhancements implemented by the 

RTOs/ISOs. This panel will present an 

overview of each RTOs’/ISOs’ 

experience in managing credit risk and 

will allow the panelists to ask questions 

of one another to facilitate the exchange 

of best practices. The panel may include 

a discussion of the following topics and 

questions: 

1. How is the risk management 

function in your RTO/ISO structured? 

What are the tools and resources (in 

terms of personnel, data, software, etc.) 

your risk department uses to implement 

the RTO’s/ISO’s credit policy? How do 

you evaluate a new or existing market 

participant’s risk of default? When and 

how do you communicate with market 

participants to obtain information or to 

convey credit concerns? To what extent 

do you communicate with other 

departments within the RTO/ISO 

regarding credit risk concerns in the 

RTO/ISO markets? 

2. To what extent does the RTO/ISO 

need discretion to implement its credit 

policy to protect the markets from the 

risk of market participant defaults? Does 

your RTO/ISO currently have such 

discretion? How should this discretion 

be balanced with the need to ensure 

non-discriminatory treatment of market 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 

participants? What remedies, if any, do 

you currently have available to market 

participants suspended or rejected for 

posing an unreasonable credit risk to the 

RTO/ISO markets? 

3. What significant enhancements has 

your RTO/ISO made to its credit policy 

in recent years? What tools and 

resources did it require to implement 

these enhancements? What lessons has 

your risk department learned in 

implementing these enhancements? 

What would you recommend to other 

RTOs/ISOs considering similar 

enhancements? 

4. Do certain RTO/ISO products (such 

as virtuals) or aspects of market design 

pose greater credit risk than others? 

How, if at all, have recent market design 

changes impacted the credit risk in the 

RTO/ISO markets, particularly the 

Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) 

markets (e.g., limiting the available FTR 

contract paths, altering the FTR capacity 

available at auction, or changing the 

frequency of long-term FTR auctions)? 

To what extent is the risk department 

involved in discussions of market 

design changes? 

5. What Know Your Customer 

protocols do RTOs/ISOs have in place, 

and are they adequate? Are RTOs/ISOs 

able to share information with one 

another to assist in implementing Know 

Your Customer protocols? Have market 

participants indicated concerns about 

such information sharing (within the 

RTO/ISO departments, and with other 

RTOs/ISOs) and if so, how have they 

been addressed? Are there barriers or 

rules the Commission should modify to 

facilitate the exchange of information 

among RTOs/ISOs? If not, are there 

ways that information could be shared 

securely and confidentially? What 

impact, if any, would the sharing of 

additional information have on the 

mitigation of credit risk? What concerns 

exist for the confidential treatment of 

information and how could those 

concerns be addressed? Who is best 

positioned to address those concerns? 

12:30 p.m.–1:30 p.m.: Lunch 

1:30 p.m.–3:00 p.m.: Panel 3: Internal 

Resources and Expertise within 

RTOs/ISOs 

Robert Anderson, Executive Director, 

Committee of Chief Risk Officers 

Melissa Brown, Senior Vice President 

and Chief Financial Officer, 

Midcontinent ISO 

Nigeria Bloczynski, Chief Risk Officer, 

PJM Interconnection, LLC 

Morgan Davies, Executive Director, 

Alliance Risk Group 

KC Cloyd, Former VP of Commercial 

Credit, Exelon 

This panel will (1) address what 

internal resources and expertise are 

needed for the RTOs/ISOs to protect 

their markets and market participants 

from defaults, and (2) explore best 

practices for efficiently building 

expertise on credit risk management. 

The panel may include a discussion of 

the following topics and questions: 

1. What are key principles for the 

organization and governance of risk 

management departments, and how 

should those principles be applied to 

the RTOs/ISOs? 

2. Are there best practices such as 

minimum experience requirements, 

training, or certifications that RTOs/ 

ISOs should consider that ensure their 

risk departments have sufficient staff, 

training, and resources to identify and 

mitigate credit risks efficiently and 

effectively? What are the key 

responsibilities of staff and management 

in the risk departments of RTOs/ISOs? 

3. What data and technological 

systems do the RTOs/ISOs need to 

manage risk? How often are the 

efficiency and effectiveness of these 

systems assessed? 

4. How frequently should the risk 

departments communicate with other 

departments within the RTO/ISO? 

Should the risk departments at one 

RTO/ISO communicate with the other 

RTOs/ISOs? What communication 

protocols are currently in place to 

elevate concerns regarding risk? Is there 

a need for additional protocols or 

standards for sharing data among the 

RTOs/ISOs, and if so who should be 

responsible for setting those standards? 

Have market participants indicated 

concerns about such information 

sharing (within the RTO/ISO 

departments, and with other RTOs/ 

ISOs) and if so, how have they been 

addressed? 

5. Are there any additional resources 

that RTOs/ISOs should obtain or 

practices they should adopt to help 

reduce the risk of defaults? 

3:00 p.m.–3:15 p.m.: Break 

3:15 p.m.–4:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Impact of 

Market Design on Credit Risk 

Abram Klein, Managing Partner, 

Appian Way Energy Partners 

Keith Collins, Executive Director of 

Market Monitoring Unit, Southwest 

Power Pool, Inc. 

Scott Everngam, President, Blue 

Horseshoe Energy, LLC 

Demetri Karousos, Chief Operating 

Officer, Nodal Exchange and Chief 

Risk Officer, Nodal Clear 

Ruta Skucas, Partner, Pierce Atwood 

LLP 

The purpose of this panel will be to 

discuss how market design impacts the 

credit risk in RTO/ISOs markets, 

particularly the FTR markets. This panel 

will highlight how RTOs/ISOs and 

market participants view the risk posed 

by different market products (including 

virtuals and FTRs with different 

contract lengths, locations, auction 

calendars, and tenors) and how this 

helps shape the credit policy of the 

market products. This panel will also 

discuss how differences between 

comparable market products shape 

credit policy differences between the 

RTOs/ISOs. The panel may include a 

discussion of the following topics and 

questions: 

1. How do differences in market 

design across RTOs/ISOs shape credit 

risk and policies among similar market 

products? What role does a market 

products’ liquidity play in shaping the 

credit risk in RTO/ISO markets? 

2. How can market design minimize 

credit risk? To what extent should the 

consideration of potential market design 

changes consider the impact of such 

changes on credit risk? How should the 

RTO/ISO credit policies and market 

design strike an appropriate balance 

between protecting their markets from 

defaults while also ensuring sufficient 

competition and ease of entry? 

3. Could greater coordination with the 

risk department within an RTO/ISO 

during the market design process help 

to reduce the overall risk in the 

markets? 

4. What are potential benefits and 

drawbacks to the RTOs/ISOs and to 

market participants with third party 

clearing of FTRs? What are the potential 

benefits and drawbacks of the RTO/ISOs 

clearing financially settled products 

using a model similar to those used by 

other exchanges? 

Day 2—Friday, February 26, 2021 

9:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.: Opening Remarks 

9:15 a.m.–10:45 a.m.: Panel 5: 

Addressing Counterparty Risk: 

Minimum Participation 

Requirements and Know Your 

Customer Protocols 

Andrew Stevens, Managing Director, 

DC Energy 

Eric Twombly, Principal, Devon 

Solutions LLC 

C.J. Polito, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP 

Lauren David, Director of Credit and 

Collateral Management, Exelon 

Corporation 

Noha Sidhom, CEO, Viribus Fund LP 

This panel will address how RTOs/ 

ISOs understand and address the 

counterparty risks of market 

participants through minimum 

capitalization requirements, 

creditworthiness documentation, RTO/ 

ISO review processes and Know Your 

Customer protocols. In particular, this 

panel will discuss whether minimum 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 / Notices 11281 

participation requirements create undue 

burdens for market participants, and 

whether increased or decreased 

uniformity in such requirements would 

be beneficial. This panel will provide an 

overview of the tools available to RTOs/ 

ISOs to conduct and proactively manage 

counterparty risk, as well as best 

practices and opportunities for 

increased efficiency. Additionally, the 

panel will explore opportunities for 

increased information sharing across 

RTOs/ISOs, as well as RTO/ISO 

authority and burden. The panel may 

include a discussion of the following 

topics and questions: 

1. What is the fundamental purpose of 

minimum capitalization requirements? 

Are the barriers to entry created by 

current minimum capitalization 

requirements commensurate with a 

reduction in risk to the RTO/ISO 

markets? 

2. How, if at all, should minimum 

capitalization differ for different types 

of market participants, either based on 

their structure or on the RTO/ISO 

markets in which they participate? How, 

if at all, should minimum capitalization 

levels scale with the size of a market 

participant’s portfolio? Should a market 

participant’s participation in another 

RTO/ISO affect minimum capitalization 

requirements? Should different market 

products have different minimum 

capitalization requirements? 

3. What are current best practices for 

Know Your Customer protocols? Are 

there tools and practices available that 

the RTOs/ISOs should consider 

adopting? Are different practices needed 

for different market products or for 

different types of market participants 

based on type of entity, ownership 

structure, or business strategy? Are tools 

specific to the RTOs/ISOs necessary or 

would commercially available, off-theshelf tools be adequate? 

4. What burden does the Know Your 

Customer process pose on market 

participants? Are there ways the RTOs/ 

ISOs could make the Know Your 

Customer process more efficient without 

reducing its effectiveness? 

5. What level of discretion should all 

RTOs/ISOs have to reject or suspend a 

market participant based on information 

discovered during initial or periodic 

reviews of a market participant’s risk? 

How should this be balanced against 

market participants’ rights? 

10:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m.: Break 

11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.: Panel 6: 

Collateral, Initial and Variation 

Margining for FTR and non-FTR 

positions 

J.C. Kneale, Vice President for North 

American Natural Gas, Power, NGL, 

and LNG Markets, Intercontinental 

Exchange Inc. 

Rafael Martinez, Senior Financial Risk 

Analyst, U.S. Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission 

Robert Marsh, Chief Operating 

Officer, Monolith Energy Trading 

Kenneth Schisler, Vice President of 

Regulatory and Government Affairs, 

CPower Energy Management 

Sam Siegel, Associate General 

Counsel and VP of Regulatory 

Compliance for Trading and 

Generation, Vistra Corp 

Ryan Seghesio, Vice President, Chief 

Financial Officer and Treasurer, 

California ISO 

The purpose of this panel will be to 

explore the principles underlying initial 

margin (the initial amount of collateral 

required to enter into a contract) and 

variation margin (the change in 

collateral required as the value of a 

contract changes over time) and how 

RTOs/ISOs apply these principles to the 

markets they administer, particularly to 

FTR markets. This panel will highlight 

the key differences in FTR credit 

practices, as well as recent changes in 

FTR credit policy. The panel may 

include a discussion of the following 

topics and questions: 

1. What are basic principles 

underlying initial and variation margin 

and how are they applied in the RTO/ 

ISO markets? Do current RTO/ISO 

practices adhere to general principles 

for setting initial and variation margin? 

Are there any metrics and assumptions 

(e.g. collateral confidence levels and reassessment/true-up intervals, and 

position closeout assumptions) that 

should be examined to see how well 

RTO/ISO practices ensure that initial 

and variation margin levels are 

adequate? 

2. What are some of the best practices 

in terms of measuring a market 

participant’s FTR portfolio’s anticipated 

exposure? What are the potential 

benefits and downsides of using Markto-Auction collateral requirements, 

incorporating future transmission 

changes into models, or other methods 

of incorporating forward-looking price 

information into FTR collateral 

requirements? Should all the RTOs/ISOs 

consider implementing minimum 

collateral requirements for FTRs? 

3. How long should collateral be held 

by the RTOs/ISOs? Do any RTOs/ISOs 

hold collateral longer than necessary or 

not long enough to adequately protect 

their markets from the risk of market 

participant defaults? 

4. Are the forms of collateral currently 

accepted by the RTOs/ISOs sufficient? 

What are benefits and drawbacks of 

RTOs/ISOs accepting surety bonds as a 

form of collateral? What must an RTO/ 

ISO consider when determining 

whether to accept surety bonds as a 

form of collateral? 

12:30 p.m.–12:45 p.m.: Closing Remarks 

[FR Doc. 2021–03730 Filed 2–23–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP21–54–000] 

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, 

Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket 

Authorization and Establishing 

Intervention and Protest Deadline 

Take notice that on February 12, 2021, 

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. 

(Southern Star), 4700 State Route 56, 

Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed in 

the above referenced docket a prior 

notice pursuant to sections 157.205 and 

157.208 of the Commission’s regulations 

under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and its 

blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 

CP82–479–000 for authorization to 

increase the maximum allowable 

operating pressure (MAOP) of Southern 

Star’s facilities interconnecting its 

natural gas transmission system with 

the system of ONEOK Field Services 

Company, LLC at Southern Star’s meter 

setting at the OFS Maysville Receipt 

Point (also referred to as OFS Maysville 

Meter Setting) in Garvin County, 

Oklahoma from 694 pounds per square 

inch gauge (psig) to 1480 psig, which is 

the level supported under the Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration’s regulations, all as 

more fully set forth in the request which 

is on file with the Commission and open 

to public inspection. 

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://

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 the 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 the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES