35498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Under this definition, an employee 

who is legally married to a same-sex 

spouse in one State and who resides or 

works in a State where the marriage is 

not legally recognized may use FMLA 

leave for his or her spouse. This 

proposed regulation deviates from 

DOL’s current regulatory definition of 

spouse as ‘‘a husband or wife as defined 

or recognized under State law for 

purposes of marriage in the State where 

the employee resides, including 

common law marriage in States where it 

is recognized.’’ (See 29 CFR 825.102 

(emphasis added).) However, DOL is 

concurrently issuing a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that will propose 

to change the definition of spouse. 

OPM’s proposed definition in this 

NPRM is the same as DOL’s proposed 

definition. 

OPM believes that this definition of 

spouse is appropriate for the Federal 

workforce and that Federal employees 

would benefit from this broader 

definition. To support an agency’s 

mission, employees may be stationed in 

a State other than the State of their 

marriage, and, at times, relocated 

throughout the United States and 

abroad. Accordingly, consistent with 

DOL’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

OPM believes that using this definition 

of spouse will enable the Federal 

Government to consider the needs of a 

diverse workforce and provide 

consistent application of policy across 

the Federal Government. Uniform 

treatment of all Federal employees will 

make it more likely that employees will 

accept voluntary details and transfers to 

States where a same-sex marriage is not 

recognized. 

Children of Same-Sex Couples 

By clarifying that a same-sex spouse 

qualifies as a spouse for purposes of the 

FMLA, children of an employee’s samesex spouse now qualify as stepchildren 

because their parents are in a legal 

same-sex marriage. Same-sex spouses 

who stand in loco parentis to the 

spouse’s child are already entitled to 

take FMLA leave to care for the child. 

Additionally, the proposed rule clarifies 

that same-sex spouses are able to take 

leave to care for their spouse’s child by 

virtue of being the child’s stepparent 

regardless of whether they stand in loco 

parentis. For information about the 

ability of employees to take FMLA leave 

for the children of their domestic 

partners, employees should review the 

OPM memorandum CPM 2010–15, sent 

to agencies on August 31, 2010, titled 

‘‘Interpretation of ‘Son or Daughter’ 

Under the Family and Medical Leave 

Act,’’ available at www.chcoc.gov/

Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx?

TransmittalID=3122. 

Conforming Amendments 

We are also proposing conforming 

amendments to revise the definition of 

parent and add a definition for State to 

align with DOL’s definitions of these 

terms. DOL revised its definition of 

parent on November 17, 2008, at 73 FR 

67934, to include adoptive, step, or 

foster parents. This change will permit 

an employee to use FMLA leave to care 

for a stepparent who did not stand in 

loco parentis to the employee when the 

employee was a child. The definition of 

State clarifies that the term, as used in 

the definition of spouse, includes the 

District of Columbia and any Territory 

or possession of the United States. 

Executive Order 13563 and Executive 

Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has reviewed this rule in accordance 

with E.O. 13563 and 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because it will apply only to Federal 

agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 630 

Government employees. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Katherine Archuleta, 

Director. 

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 

5 CFR part 630 as follows: 

PART 630—ABSENCE AND LEAVE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 630 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 6311; § 630.205 also 

issued under Pub. L. 108–411, 118 Stat 2312; 

§ 630.301 also issued under Pub. L. 103–356, 

108 Stat. 3410 and Pub. L. 108–411, 118 Stat 

2312; § 630.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 

6133(a); §§ 630.306 and 630.308 also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(3), Pub. L. 102–484, 

106 Stat. 2722, and Pub. L. 103–337, 108 Stat. 

2663; subpart D also issued under Pub. L. 

103–329, 108 Stat. 2423; § 630.501 and 

subpart F also issued under E.O. 11228, 30 

FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart 

G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305; subpart 

H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6326; subpart 

I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, Pub. L. 

100–566, 102 Stat. 2834, and Pub. L. 103– 

103, 107 Stat. 1022; subpart J also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 6362, Pub. L 100–566, and 

Pub. L. 103–103; subpart K also issued under 

Pub. L. 105–18, 111 Stat. 158; subpart L also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 6387 and Pub. L. 103– 

3, 107 Stat. 23; and subpart M also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 6391 and Pub. L. 102–25, 105 

Stat. 92. 

■ 2. In § 630.1202, the definitions of 

parent and spouse are revised and the 

definition of State is added in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 630.1202 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Parent means a biological, adoptive, 

step, or foster father or mother, or any 

individual who stood in loco parentis to 

the employee when the employee was a 

son or daughter as defined below. This 

term does not include parents ‘‘in law.’’ 

* * * * * 

Spouse, as defined in the statute, 

means a husband or wife. For purposes 

of this definition, husband or wife refers 

to the other person with whom an 

individual entered into marriage as 

defined or recognized under State law 

for purposes of marriage in the State 

where the marriage was entered into or, 

in the case of a marriage entered into 

outside of any State, if the marriage is 

valid in the place where entered into 

and could have been entered into in at 

least one State. This definition includes 

an individual in a same-sex or common 

law marriage that either: 

(1) Was entered into in a State that 

recognizes such marriages; or 

(2) If entered into outside of any State, 

was valid in the place where entered 

into and could have been entered into 

in at least one State. 

* * * * * 

State means any State of the United 

States or the District of Columbia or any 

Territory or possession of the United 

States. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–14514 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 915 and 944 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–13–0069; FV13–915–3 

PR] 

Avocados Grown in South Florida and 

Imported Avocados; Clarification of 

the Avocado Grade Requirements 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule invites 

comments on changes to the minimum 

grade requirements currently prescribed 

under the Florida avocado marketing 

order (order) and a technical correction 

to the avocado import regulation. The 

order regulates the handling of avocados 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35499 

grown in South Florida, and is 

administered locally by the Avocado 

Administrative Committee (Committee). 

For South Florida-grown avocados, this 

proposed rule would align the 

regulations with current industry 

practice. It would remove language 

permitting the commingling of avocados 

with dissimilar characteristics in 

containers for shipment within the 

production area. All avocado shipments 

within the production area would need 

to meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 

grade, as provided in the United States 

Standards for Grades of Florida 

Avocados. For imported avocados, this 

rule would also make a technical 

correction to the avocado import 

regulation to clarify that the minimum 

grade requirement for imported 

avocados remains unchanged at a U.S. 

No. 2. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Docket Clerk during regular business 

hours, or can be viewed at: http://

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this proposal 

will be included in the record and will 

be made available to the public. Please 

be advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting 

comments will be made public on the 

internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or 

Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, 

Southeast Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email: 

Doris.Jamieson@ams.usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Order No. 915, as amended (7 CFR part 

915), regulating the handling of 

avocados grown in South Florida, 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ 

The order is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

This proposed rule is also issued 

under section 8e of the Act, which 

provides that whenever certain 

specified commodities, including 

avocados, are regulated under a Federal 

marketing order, imports of these 

commodities into the United States are 

prohibited unless they meet the same or 

comparable grade, size, quality, or 

maturity requirements as those in effect 

for the domestically produced 

commodities. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 13175. 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This action is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

There are no administrative 

procedures which must be exhausted 

prior to any judicial challenge to the 

provisions of import regulations issued 

under section 8e of the Act. 

This proposal invites comments on 

revisions to the grade requirements 

currently prescribed under the order 

and the avocado import regulation. This 

proposed rule would remove language 

permitting the commingling of avocados 

with dissimilar characteristics for 

shipment within the production area. 

This would require all avocados 

shipped within the production area to 

meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 

grade, as provided in the United States 

Standards for Grades of Florida 

Avocados. This rule would also make a 

technical correction to the avocado 

import regulation to clarify that the 

minimum grade requirement for 

imported avocados remains unchanged 

at a U.S. No. 2. 

Section 915.51 of the order provides, 

in part, authority to issue regulations 

establishing specific grade and pack 

requirements for avocados. Section 

915.52 of the order provides authority 

for the modification, suspension, or 

termination of established regulations. 

Section 915.306 of the order’s 

container and pack regulations prescribe 

grade, pack, and container marking 

requirements for Florida avocados. 

Paragraph (a)(1) of that section 

prescribes, in part, the grade 

requirements for avocados shipped 

within the production area. Minimum 

grade and size requirements for 

avocados imported into the United 

States are currently in effect under 

§ 944.28. 

In reviewing the Florida avocado 

regulations, it was noted that paragraph 

(a)(1) of § 915.306 of the regulations 

currently states that avocados must 

grade at least U.S. No. 2 but also allows 

for the commingling of different shapes 

and sizes within the same container. 

However, the provisions of the U.S. No. 

2 grade require that avocados packed in 

the same container be similar in shape 

and size. 

USDA requested that the Committee 

review the Florida avocado regulations 

regulatory language in regards to grade 

for shipments within the production 

area. The Committee responded that the 

language permitting commingling was 

added to the regulations in 1992 to 

allow handlers to ship quantities of fruit 

of different shapes and sizes in the same 

container to make more fruit available 

for shipment within the production 

area. Committee members agreed that 

handlers no longer use this provision as 

ample fruit is available to fill the 

containers with avocados of the same 

shape and size. Consequently, in a June 

12, 2013, meeting, the Committee 

recommended removing the language 

permitting commingling to align the 

regulations with current industry 

practices and with the United States 

Standards for Grades of Florida 

Avocados (7 CFR 51.3050 through 

51.3069). This action would remove the 

language permitting the commingling of 

avocados with dissimilar characteristics, 

requiring all avocados shipped within 

the production area to meet the 

provisions of a U.S. No. 2 grade, as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
35500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

provided in the United States Standards 

for Grades of Florida Avocados. 

This action would also make a 

technical correction to the grade 

requirements under the avocado import 

regulation. Section 8e of the Act 

provides that when certain domestically 

produced commodities, including 

avocados, are regulated under a Federal 

marketing order, imports of that 

commodity must meet the same or 

comparable grade, size, quality, or 

maturity requirements. As it is the only 

marketing order covering avocados, 

import requirements are based on the 

marketing order for avocados grown in 

South Florida. 

The minimum grade requirement for 

Florida avocados shipped outside the 

production area was recently increased 

by a final rule (78 FR 51041) from a U.S. 

No. 2 to a U.S. Combination grade. The 

change in grade applies only to Florida 

avocados shipped outside the 

production area. The less restrictive 

U.S. No. 2 grade would continue to 

apply to shipments within the 

production area and to imported 

avocados. As indicated in the final rule, 

this action would make a technical 

correction to the import regulation to 

clarify that the minimum grade 

requirement for imported avocados 

remains unchanged at a U.S. No. 2, 

which is the same grade requirement for 

avocados shipped within the production 

area. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to such actions in 

order that small businesses will not be 

unduly or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Import regulations issued under 

the Act are based on those established 

under Federal marketing orders. 

There are approximately 30 handlers 

of Florida avocados subject to regulation 

under the order and approximately 300 

producers of avocados in the production 

area. There are approximately 260 

importers of avocados. Small 

agricultural service firms, which 

include avocado handlers and 

importers, are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) as those 

whose annual receipts are less than 

$7,000,000, and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000 

(13 CFR 121.201). 

According to Committee data and 

information from the National 

Agricultural Statistical Service, the 

average price for Florida avocados 

during the 2011–12 season was 

approximately $20.79 per 55-pound 

bushel container, and total shipments 

were slightly higher than 1.2 million 55- 

pound bushels. Using the average price 

and shipment information provided by 

the Committee, the majority of avocado 

handlers could be considered small 

businesses under SBA’s definition. In 

addition, based on avocado production, 

producer prices, and the total number of 

Florida avocado producers, the average 

annual producer revenue is less than 

$750,000. Information from the Foreign 

Agricultural Service, USDA, indicates 

that the dollar value of imported 

avocados was around $1.1 billion in 

2013. Using these values, most 

importers would have annual receipts of 

less than $7,000,000 for avocados. 

Consequently, the majority of avocado 

handlers, producers, and importers may 

be classified as small entities. 

Mexico, Chile, Peru, and Dominican 

Republic are the major production areas 

exporting avocados to the United States. 

In 2013, shipments of avocados 

imported into the United States totaled 

nearly 572,000 metric tons. Mexico 

accounted for around 509,700 metric 

tons, with 23,400 metric tons from 

Chile, 21,600 metric tons from Peru, and 

17,000 metric tons were imported from 

the Dominican Republic. 

This proposed rule would remove 

language permitting the commingling of 

avocados with dissimilar characteristics 

for shipments within the production 

area. This would require all avocados 

shipped within the production area to 

meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 

grade, as provided in the United States 

Standards for Grades of Florida 

Avocados. This proposal would revise 

the grade requirements currently 

prescribed for Florida avocados shipped 

within the production area under 

§ 915.306 of the regulations. This 

proposed change would align marketing 

order regulations with current industry 

practices and with the United States 

Standards for Grades of Florida 

Avocados. Authority for this action is 

provided in §§ 915.51 and 915.52 of the 

order. This action would also make a 

technical correction to the avocado 

import regulation, § 944.28, to clarify 

that the minimum grade requirement for 

imported avocados remains unchanged 

at a U.S. No. 2. 

Any costs associated with this change 

are anticipated to be minimal. 

Committee members indicated that the 

industry no longer ships containers of 

dissimilar fruit within the production 

area. In addition, the volume of U.S. No. 

2 grade Florida avocados shipped 

during a season is small, representing 

less than one percent of total annual 

shipments. Further, any impact from 

this action would be limited to the 

volume of fruit shipped within the 

production area. Therefore, 

implementation of this proposed rule is 

not expected to impact the volume of 

fruit being utilized nor would it impact 

the total volume of Florida avocados on 

the market. There is no anticipated 

impact on import volume, as the 

proposed change to those requirements 

is merely a clarification. The effects of 

this proposed rule are not expected to 

be disproportionately greater or less for 

small handlers or growers than for large 

entities. 

The only alternative the Committee 

considered was leaving the regulations 

for shipments within the production 

area unchanged. However, Committee 

members agreed that this language was 

outdated as the industry no longer 

commingles shapes and sizes in 

production area shipments. Therefore, 

this alternative was rejected. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic 

Fruit Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are necessary. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

Accordingly, this action would not 

impose any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large Florida avocado handlers. 

As with all Federal marketing order 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed rule. 

However, as previously stated, imported 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 35501 

avocados and those shipped within the 

production area must meet the 

applicable requirements for grade, as 

specified in the United States Standards 

for Grades of Florida Avocados (7 CFR 

51.3050 through 51.3069) issued under 

the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 

(7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627). 

Further, the Committee’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

Florida avocado industry, and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the June 

12, 2013, meeting was a public meeting. 

All entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

In accordance with section 8e of the 

Act, the United States Trade 

Representative has concurred with the 

issuance of this proposed rule. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate as this proposed rule should 

be in place as soon as possible because 

handlers begin shipping in mid-May, 

and the technical correction to the 

import regulation is to clarify that the 

grade requirement is unchanged. All 

written comments timely received will 

be considered before a final 

determination is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 915 

Avocados, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 944 

Avocados, Food grades and standards, 

Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, 

Limes, Olives, Oranges. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR parts 915 and 944 are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN 

SOUTH FLORIDA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 915 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 915.306, paragraph (a)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 915.306 Florida avocado grade, pack, 

and container marking regulation. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Such avocados grade at least U.S. 

Combination, except that avocados 

handled to destinations within the 

production area grade at least U.S. No. 

2. 

* * * * * 

PART 944—FRUITS; IMPORT 

REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 944 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 4. In § 944.28, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

(a) Pursuant to section 8e of the Act 

and Part 944—Fruits; Import 

Regulations, the importation into the 

United States of any avocados is 

prohibited unless such avocados grade 

at least U.S. No. 2, as such grade is 

defined in the United States Standards 

for Grades of Florida Avocados (7 CFR 

51.3050 through 51.3069). 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 16, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–14405 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No. RM14–11–000] 

Open Access and Priority Rights on 

Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to the proposed rule (RM14– 

11–000) which published in the Federal 

Register of Friday, May 30, 2014 (79 FR 

31061). The regulation proposed to 

amend regulations to waive the Open 

Access Transmission Tariff 

requirements, the Open Access SameTime Information System requirements 

of its regulations, and the Standards of 

Conduct requirements of its regulations, 

for any public utility that is subject to 

such requirements solely because it 

owns, controls, or operates 

Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities, in whole or 

in part, and sells electric energy from its 

Generating Facility, as those terms are 

defined in the pro forma Large 

Generator Interconnection Procedures 

and the pro forma Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement and adopted 

in Order No. 2003. The Commission 

proposed to find that requiring the filing 

of an Open Access Transmission Tariff 

is not necessary to prevent unjust or 

unreasonable rates or unduly 

discriminatory behavior with respect to 

Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities over which 

interconnection and transmission 

services can be ordered pursuant to 

sections 210, 211, and 212 of the 

Federal Power Act. 

DATES: Comments are due July 29, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Robinson (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Policy 

and Innovation, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8868, Becky.Robinson@

ferc.gov. 

Brian Gish (Legal Information), Office of 

the General Counsel—Energy Markets, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8998, Brian.Gish@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

15, 2014, the Commission issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 

in the above-captioned proceeding. 

Open Access and Priority Rights on 

Interconnection Customer’s 

Interconnection Facilities, 147 FERC 

¶ 61,123 (2014). This errata notice 

makes several corrections to the NOPR 

as issued. 

In FR Doc. 2014–11946 appearing on 

page 31061 in the Federal Register of 

Friday, May 30, 2014, the following 

corrections are made: 

■ 1. On page 31072, second column, 

first paragraph, the first sentence of 

section 35.28(d)(1) of the proposed 

regulatory text is revised to read as 

follows: 

‘‘A public utility subject to the 

requirements of this section and 18 CFR 

parts 37 (Open Access Same-Time 

Information System) and 358 (Standards 

of Conduct for Transmission Providers) 

may file a request for waiver of all or 

part of such requirements for good cause 

shown.’’ 

■ 2. On page 31072, second column, 

fourth paragraph, the first sentence of 

section 35.28(d)(2)(ii) of the proposed 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS