24646 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

requirements of this paragraph for that 

replaced flight deck windshield. 

(1) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by GKN Aerospace (GKN) with 

screw/lug electrical connections, repeat the 

detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not 

to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 48 months, 

whichever occurs later. 

(2) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by PPG Aerospace (PPG) with 

screw/lug electrical connections, repeat the 

detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not 

to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever occurs later. 

(h) Compliance Time Exception for Previous 

Inspection 

For airplanes on which inspections of the 

J1, J4, and J5 terminals, as specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2010 (for 

Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB series 

airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 2, 

dated March 31, 2010 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes); were accomplished before 

the effective date of this AD: Do the actions 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the 

applicable compliance time specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable intervals specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. 

(1) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by GKN with screw/lug 

electrical connections: At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and 

(h)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Within 12,000 flight hours or 48 

months, whichever occurs later, after 

accomplishing the inspection. 

(ii) Within 500 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by PPG with screw/lug 

electrical connections: At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and 

(h)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Within 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever occurs later, after accomplishing 

the inspection. 

(ii) Within 500 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(i) Inspection for Replaced Windshield or 

Reassembled Heat Power Connection 

For any windshield replaced after the 

effective date of this AD with a windshield 

that uses screws and lugs for electrical heat 

connection, or if a windshield heat power 

connection is reassembled on windshields 

that use screws and lugs for windshield heat 

connections: Do the actions required in 

paragraph (g) of this AD within 500 flight 

hours after the windshield replacement or 

connection reassembly, and thereafter at the 

applicable interval specified in paragraph 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. 

(j) Exception to Compliance Time for Certain 

Windshield Replacement 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD, the screw is 

found cross threaded: Do the applicable 

actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) 

of this AD. 

(1) If the terminal lug is loose and cannot 

be tightened: Before further flight, replace 

that windshield, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 

(for Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB 

series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, 

dated December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes). 

(2) If the terminal lug is tight or can be 

tightened: Replace that windshield within 

500 flight hours after the inspection, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated 

December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–200, 

–200PF, and –200CB series airplanes); or 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–30–0020, Revision 3, dated December 

16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 series 

airplanes). 

(k) Optional Terminating Action 

Replacing a flight deck windshield that 

uses screws and lugs for the electrical 

connections with a flight deck windshield 

that uses pins and sockets for the electrical 

connections, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 

(for Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB 

series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, 

dated December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes); ends the repetitive 

inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of 

this AD for that windshield. 

(l) Related AD Termination 

Accomplishing the actions required by this 

AD terminates the requirements of AD 2010– 

15–01, Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, 

July 13, 2010), paragraphs (g), (j), and (k), for 

that airplane only. 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by this AD, if those actions 

were performed before the effective date of 

this AD using Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 2, 

dated April 19, 2010 (for Model 757–200, 

–200PF, and –200CB series airplanes); or 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–30–0020, Revision 2, dated March 31, 

2010 (for Model 757–300 series airplanes). 

(n) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 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 manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9–ANM– 

Seattle–ACO–AMOC–Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) 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. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace 

Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, 

ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6478; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: Elias.Natsiopoulos@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; email me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 

2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9916 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket Nos. AD12–14–000 and AD11–11– 

000] 

Open Access and Priority Rights on 

Interconnection Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the 

Commission seeks comment on open 

access and priority rights for capacity on 

interconnection facilities. 

DATES: Comments are due June 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and in 

accordance with the requirements 

posted on the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web Site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24647 

1As noted below, the Commission in the past has 

used the term ‘‘generator lead lines’’ to describe the 

class of facilities at issue in this proceeding. In this 

NOI, we will use the term ‘‘interconnection 

facilities,’’ except when referencing comments on 

generator lead lines. 

2See Milford Wind Corridor, LLC, 129 FERC 

¶ 61,149, at P. 24 (2009) (Milford); Terra-Gen Dixie 

Valley, LLC, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215, at P. 49 (2010) 

(Terra-Gen I). 

3Aero Energy LLC, 116 FERC ¶ 61,149, at P. 28 

(2006) (Aero); Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P. 22; 

and Alta Wind, 134 FERC ¶ 61,109, at P. 16–17 

(2011) (Alta Wind). Such plans and initial progress 

also must pre-date a valid request for service. TerraGen I, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P. 53. 

4See Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P. 5. 

5Black Creek Hydro, Inc., 77 FERC ¶ 61,232, at 

61,941 (1996); Termoelectrica U.S., LLC, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,087, at P. 11 (2003). 

6See, e.g., Aero, 116 FERC ¶ 61,149; Milford, 129 

FERC ¶ 61,149; Terra-Gen I, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215; and 

Alta Wind, 134 FERC ¶ 61,109. 

7The Commission distinguishes this proceeding 

from the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation’s (NERC) current investigation into the 

applicability of Reliability Standards to 

interconnection facilities (Project 2010–07). 

Comments related to NERC’s investigation are not 

the subject of this Notice of Inquiry and should be 

directed to NERC. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand-deliver an original 

and copy of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

These requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or 

via phone from Online Support at (202) 

502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866–208– 

3676. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Comment Procedures Section of 

this document. 

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. 

Christopher Thomas (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Market 

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8412. 

Olga Kolotushkina (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6024. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

139 FERC ¶ 61,051 

Docket Nos. 

Open Access and Priority 

Rights on Interconnection 

Facilities ............................ AD12–14–000 

Priority Rights to New Participant-Funded Transmission AD11–11–000 

Notice of Inquiry 

April 19, 2012. 

1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the 

Commission seeks to explore whether, 

and, if so, how the Commission should 

revise its current policy concerning 

priority rights and open access with 

regard to certain interconnection 

facilities. In a series of cases that have 

come before the Commission in recent 

years, the Commission has treated 

certain interconnection facilities 1 as 

transmission facilities for purposes of 

open access policies. However, the 

Commission has permitted an owner of 

interconnection facilities to have 

priority to capacity over its facilities for 

its existing use at the time of a thirdparty request for service.2 In the 

instance where an owner of 

interconnection facilities has specific, 

pre-existing generator expansion plans 

with milestones for construction of 

generation facilities and can 

demonstrate that it has made material 

progress toward meeting those 

milestones, the Commission may grant 

priority rights for the capacity on the 

interconnection facilities to those future 

generation projects or expansions as 

well.3 Further, an affiliate of the current 

interconnection facility owner that is 

developing its own generator projects 

also may obtain priority rights to the 

capacity on the interconnection 

facilities by meeting the ‘‘specific plans 

and milestones’’ standard with respect 

to future use, provided that the plans 

include a future transfer of ownership of 

the interconnection facilities to such an 

affiliate.4 This granting of priority rights 

preserves the ability of the generation 

developer to deliver its output to the 

point of interconnection with the 

transmission system, so long as it can 

make the relevant showing to the 

Commission sufficient to justify 

priority. The Commission requires that, 

upon receipt of a request for 

transmission service from an 

unaffiliated third party, a pro forma 

Open Access Transmission Tariff 

(OATT) must be filed by the owner of 

the facilities considered interconnection 

facilities under Order No. 2003 within 

60 days of the date of the request.5

2. To date, the Commission has 

applied this policy on a case-by-case 

basis. The Commission’s current policy 

is guided by the desire to prevent undue 

discrimination by ensuring that third 

parties have open access to available 

transfer capability that is not being used 

by the owner of the interconnection 

facilities. In doing so, the Commission 

has considered priority access to firm 

service, and granted waivers of certain 

provisions in the pro forma OATT to 

reflect the limited service available over 

interconnection facilities and the 

limited ability of generation developers 

to support certain OATT ancillary 

services and requirements. 

3. Through this Notice of Inquiry, the 

Commission seeks comment on options 

for addressing priority rights on 

interconnection facilities given the 

responses filed to the March 2011 

technical conference, which identified a 

number of concerns with the 

Commission’s current policy. As 

discussed in the sections that follow, 

the Commission seeks comments on 

alternative approaches to govern thirdparty requests for service and priority 

rights: continued use of an OATT 

framework with potential modification 

and clarification, including the potential 

introduction of a safe harbor period, and 

a case-by-case determination on the 

generation developer’s priority rights; 

and use of a Large Generator 

Interconnection Agreement (LGIA)/ 

Large Generator Interconnection 

Procedures (LGIP) framework in which 

the existing LGIA provisions that govern 

third-party use of a transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities 

would be extended to interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities 

(i.e., allowing parties to mutually agree 

to the use of and compensation for the 

facilities). The Commission also seeks 

comment on the scope of our inquiry in 

this proceeding and whether, as a 

threshold matter, there is a need to 

reconsider the Commission policy as set 

forth in the recent series of cases.6

4. We note that there are numerous 

and potentially detailed issues 

embedded within the broad categories 

of this NOI. We encourage all interested 

stakeholders to address the specific 

questions for which the Commission 

seeks comment and to include as 

appropriate any proposed tariff language 

that should be considered.7 We also 

encourage comments on how any 

individual potential policy change 

discussed below would affect the 

viability of other policies (e.g., if the 

Commission were to adopt a safe harbor 

period, what are the implications for the 

current policy of demonstrating specific 

plans and milestones to secure priority 

rights)? 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8See, e.g., Southern Company Serv., Inc., Docket 

No. ER12–554–000 (involving an approximately 

2,000 foot interconnection facility). 

9See, e.g., Bayonne Energy Center, 136 FERC 

¶ 61,019 (2011) (involving a 345 kV interconnection 

facility); Terra-Gen I, 132 FERC ¶ 61,215 (involving 

a 212 mile interconnection facility). 

10Standardization of Generator Interconnection 

Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 (2003), order on reh’g, Order 

No. 2003–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160, order on 

reh’g, Order No. 2003–B, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,171 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003–C, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 (2005), aff’d sub nom. 

Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 

475 F3d. 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 

U.S. 1230 (2008). 

11Section 9.9.2 states ‘‘* * * if the Parties 

mutually agree, such agreement not to be 

unreasonably withheld, to allow one or more third 

parties to use Transmission Provider’s 

Interconnection Facilities, or any part thereof, 

Interconnection Customer will be entitled to 

compensation for the capital expenses it incurred 

in connection with the Interconnection Facilities 

based upon the pro rata use of the Interconnection 

Facilities by the Transmission Provider, all thirdparty users and the Interconnection Customer 

* * *.’’ 

12The technical conference announcements and 

participants used the term ‘‘generator lead lines.’’ 

While for this NOI we think it is appropriate to hold 

the discussion in terms of interconnection facilities, 

in the interest of being true to the comments, we 

will maintain the use of the term ‘‘generator lead 

lines’’ in this section. 

13Priority Rights to New Participant-Funded 

Transmission, March 15, 2011 Technical 

Conference, AD11–11–000. 

14The list of entities that filed comments or 

participated at this conference is in Appendix A of 

this NOI. 

15First Wind, Invenergy, Duke, and NextEra. 

16See, e.g., First Wind at 2–4; Invenergy at 1–2; 

Duke at 5–6; and NextEra at 12–13. 

17 Invenergy, CAHW, First Wind, Puget, and 

MidAmerican. 

18See, e.g., Puget at 14–15; MidAmerican at 14– 

15. 

19SCE, BP, CAHW, Puget, National Grid, 

MidAmerican, and Wenner. 

20See, e.g., Puget at 7–8; AWEA at 10. 

I. Background 

5. Interconnection facilities are 

constructed to enable a generation 

facility or multiple generation facilities 

to transmit power from the generation 

facility to the integrated transmission 

grid. They are radial in nature, with a 

single point of interconnection with the 

network grid, and power flows toward 

the network grid, with no electrical 

loads between the generation facilities 

and the point of interconnection with 

the network grid. Interconnection 

facilities can be relatively short 

ancillary components to a single 

generation facility.8 Alternatively, they 

may span much longer distances and 

represent significant transmission 

capacity, being capable of 

interconnecting additional generation 

projects.9

6. Ownership and operation of 

interconnection facilities may take 

several forms. Under Order No. 2003,10

generation developers that wish to 

interconnect their generation facilities 

to the integrated transmission grid must 

submit an interconnection request to the 

relevant transmission provider pursuant 

to the transmission provider’s LGIP and 

develop an LGIA. Interconnection 

facilities that are owned, controlled, or 

operated by the transmission provider, 

regardless of which party constructed 

the facilities, are designated as 

transmission provider’s interconnection 

facilities under the LGIA. Third party 

use of the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities is governed by 

the provisions of the LGIA.11 This 

provision permits the parties to 

negotiate for a third party to use the 

interconnection facilities and entitles 

the original interconnection customer to 

compensation for capital expenses it 

incurred to pay for the transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities and 

to compensation for the ongoing costs, 

including operation and maintenance 

costs, based on a pro rata use among the 

parties. 

7. However, where a generation 

developer has funded and constructed a 

portion of the interconnection facilities, 

and does not transfer ownership or 

operational control of those facilities to 

the transmission provider after 

construction, under the pro forma LGIA 

those facilities are classified as 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities. That is, 

interconnection customers’ 

interconnection facilities are located 

between the generation facility and the 

point at which either the transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities 

begin or the point of interconnection 

with the transmission provider’s 

transmission system. Section 9.9.2 of 

the pro forma LGIA is inapplicable to 

third-party requests for use of an 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities. These 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities are the types 

of facilities at issue in this proceeding. 

March 2011 Technical Conference 

8. The Commission held a technical 

conference in March 2011 to explore, 

among other things, the application of 

the Commission’s open access policies 

to generator lead lines 12 in the instance 

when affiliated or unaffiliated thirdparty generators also seek to use these 

facilities.13 Generally, commenters 

assert that these policies may be unduly 

burdensome and ill-suited for generator 

lead lines, and may have detrimental 

implications for the future development 

and financing of generator lead lines 

and their associated generation projects, 

especially renewable energy projects.14

Specifically, commenters 15 argue that 

the Commission should recognize the 

commercial, technological, legal, and 

other differences between transmission 

lines and these generator lead lines 

when considering open access 

principles in the context of radial 

generator lead lines. Further, 

commenters raise a number of concerns 

with the Commission’s current practice 

of imposing an OATT Filing 

requirement on generator lead line 

developers. 

9. Among the unique attributes of 

generator lead lines, commenters 

suggest the following features: (1) 

Generator lead lines are radial lines that 

serve the limited and sole purpose of 

connecting generation facilities to the 

transmission network, i.e., they are not 

an element of the integrated 

transmission network; (2) generator lead 

lines do not provide benefits to the 

transmission system in terms of 

capability or reliability, and cannot be 

relied on for coordinated operation of 

the transmission system; (3) an outage 

on the generator lead lines would not 

affect the entire transmission system; (4) 

generator lead lines do not provide 

ancillary services; (5) generator lead 

lines are often located in remote regions 

not in close proximity to load; (6) 

generator lead lines are owned by 

entities entirely different than those that 

typically own transmission; and (7) 

generator lead lines are viewed by their 

developers and banks providing 

financing as an integral part of the 

whole, not as a project or business 

separate from the generating facility.16

10. Among the main concerns raised, 

commenters 17 identify a ‘‘free rider’’ 

problem that, in their opinion, produces 

a disincentive to be the first developer 

to build a generator lead line, while 

creating a relative advantage for other 

generation developers to be second in 

line.18 Several commenters 19 argue that 

being subject to the open access 

requirements of Order Nos. 888, 889, 

and 890 (including the obligations to 

file an OATT within 60 days of a 

request for service and to administer an 

OATT, Open Access Same Time 

Information System, Standards of 

Conduct, and Uniform System of 

Accounts) imposes significant costs and 

difficulties for independent developers, 

especially small ones that are not 

affiliated with large utilities.20 These 

developers assert that complying with 

such responsibilities, in addition to the 

obligation to commence studies related 

to a third-party request for service, may 

require expenditure of a significant 

portion of their capital, and require 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24649 

21 Id. 22See, e.g., BP at 8; CAWH at 3; and NextEra at 

20–21. Commenters appear to be referring to 

sections 17.2, 18.2, or 29.2 of the pro forma OATT, 

which set forth information required for a 

completed application. In addition, where the 

owner of the facilities does not have an OATT on 

file, a third-party customer does not need to submit 

a deposit as part of its application for transmission 

service to the interconnection facilities. See 

Sagebrush, a California Partnership, 130 FERC 

¶ 61,093, at P 57, order on reh’g, 132 FERC ¶ 61,234 

(2010) (Sagebrush). We note that the deposit is 

required once an OATT is filed. See also Sagebrush, 

132 FERC ¶ 61,234 at P 44; Terra-Gen I, 132 FERC 

¶ 61,215 at n.84. 

23See, e.g., BP at 8; NextEra at 20–21. 

24See, e.g., First Wind at 3–4. 

25See, e.g., Allete at 2. 

26Allete, BP and NextEra. 

27See Aero, 118 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 22; Milford, 

129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P 22; and Alta Wind, 134 

FERC ¶ 61,109 at P 17. 

28NextEra at 22; BP Wind at 7. 

29See, e.g., NextEra at 24; First Wind at 4. 

30See, e.g., Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 

29 (waiving the pro forma OATT’s provisions for 

network service to a single transmission line that 

does not have a control area or the generation 

resources necessary to provide network service). 

See also Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, 134 FERC 

¶ 61,027, at P 10–12 (2011) (Terra-Gen II). 

31See, e.g., First Wind at 6–7. 

32See, e.g., First Wind at 6–7; AWEA at 11; 

Edison Mission at 25; and NextEra at 13. 

33See, e.g., NextEra at 19–20. 

34See, e.g., Montana-Alberta Tie, Inc., 116 FERC 

¶ 61,071, at P 60 (2006) (MATL). 

35NextEra, AWEA, SCE, CAHW, NU/NSTAR, and 

First Wind. 36Puget at 8; Edison Mission at 17. 37Edison Mission at 19. 38See, e.g., Puget at 11. 39Puget at 9. 40See, e.g., id. at 10. 41SCE at 3; Puget at 7; and MidAmerican at 6. 

additional expertise, hardware, 

software, and staffing resources.21

11. Although these expenses may 

generally be considered normal costs of 

operating in a regulated environment, 

commenters argue that the costs are 

triggered by a relatively low threshold 

event—a written request 

unaccompanied by any deposit.22 Thus, 

commenters assert that the minimal 

commitment required for third-party 

requests for transmission service on 

generator lead lines may not sufficiently 

distinguish serious customers from 

those who may have merely a 

speculative interest in taking 

transmission service, while the 

generator lead line owner is 

immediately affected by having to file 

an OATT, expend significant staff 

resources, and incur significant costs to 

evaluate the feasibility of providing the 

requested service.23

12. Commenters also state that 

priority rights on their generator lead 

line are essential for the financing of 

generation projects because priority 

rights provide lenders with assurance 

that developers will still be able to use 

the line for their planned generation 

facilities.24 Commenters assert that 

lenders are wary of financing generation 

projects without a guarantee that the 

generator lead line will have sufficient 

capacity available to transmit the 

generation to the grid, for both early and 

later phases of their generation 

projects.25 In addition, commenters 26

argue that generator developers are 

concerned with the policy of 

demonstrating ‘‘specific plans and 

milestones,’’ as it is unclear to them 

which milestones need to be described 

and which factors would adequately 

demonstrate material progress towards 

those milestones. They note that, 

although the Commission has found 

certain evidence sufficient in prior 

cases,27 its review was limited largely to 

privileged and confidential evidence, 

which could not be described in the 

Commission orders or otherwise 

disclosed to the public.28 Also, 

commenters argue that, given the 

uncertainty of generation project 

development due to financing, 

permitting, and various other factors, it 

may be neither possible for a generator 

developer to provide the needed detail 

about phases of generation that will be 

constructed in the future, nor prudent 

for developers to prematurely enter into 

binding contractual commitments 

merely for purposes of attempting to 

demonstrate priority rights.29

13. Commenters note that certain 

sections of the pro forma OATT may be 

inapplicable to generator lead lines on 

a generic basis. For instance, 

commenters argue that a single circuit 

generator lead line can only provide 

firm or non-firm point-to-point service 

and cannot provide network service,30

so the pro forma OATT’s standard terms 

and conditions for network service are 

unnecessary.31 Additionally, several 

commenters assert that because 

generator lead line owners do not have 

the capability to supply many ancillary 

services to third parties, the ancillary 

services provisions of the pro forma 

OATT are likewise inapplicable.32

Further, commenters argue that the 

planning requirements included in 

Attachment K of the OATT may be an 

unnecessary regulatory burden for 

generator developers of generation lead 

lines, as they have no native load 

growth, they do not own network 

transmission facilities, will not typically 

expand their lines absent a request for 

service, and the costs of such facilities 

are not socialized or based on a regional 

planning needs analysis.33

14. Commenters concede that 

generator lead line owners are free to 

propose non-rate terms and conditions 

that differ from the pro forma OATT, 

where each deviation is supported by a 

demonstration that it is consistent with 

or superior to the pro forma OATT or 

does not apply given the particular 

generator lead line owner’s business 

model.34 However, rather than the 

Commission continuing to evaluate 

such requests on a case-by-case basis, 

some commenters 35 suggest that the 

Commission should establish a new pro 

forma OATT to apply generically to all 

generator lead lines. 

15. As an alternative to the current 

Commission policy, some commenters 

suggest expanding section 9.9.2 of the 

LGIA, which addresses third-party 

access to transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities, to apply to 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities as well, and 

argue that doing so would render 

unnecessary the requirement for the 

original interconnection customer to file 

an OATT when a third party requests 

service on their interconnection 

facilities.36 They argue that treating a 

generator requesting access to 

interconnection facilities as an 

interconnection request is a pragmatic 

approach that more accurately 

characterizes the service being sought, 

and eliminates the unduly burdensome 

and costly obligations imposed upon 

generation developers under the 

Commission’s current policies that 

commenters assert impedes the 

development of location-constrained 

renewable generation.37

16. Further, commenters express 

concern that the current policy does not 

adequately engage the transmission 

provider in the process of 

interconnecting a third-party requestor 

of service on a generator lead line.38 To 

reach load and serve customers under 

current policy, a third party may be 

required to make separate requests for 

access to the original interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities 

and the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities, as well as a 

transmission service request on the 

interconnecting transmission provider’s 

transmission system.39 Commenters 

assert that this bifurcated process is 

inefficient.40

17. Transmission providers,41

however, caution the Commission 

against discriminating against existing 

transmission providers vis-a`-vis 

independent merchant transmission 

developers with regard to priority rights 

or other regulatory requirements. 

Transmission providers argue that any 

separate treatment for independent 

developers is not appropriate, as 

transmission providers do not want to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24650 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

42See, e.g., Puget at 3. 

43Chinook Power Transmission, LLC, 126 FERC 

¶ 61,134 (2009) (Chinook). 

44See, e.g., BP Wind Energy North America Inc., 

129 FERC ¶ 61,207 (2009) (for an order accepting 

a CFA among affiliated parties and granting waiver 

of the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 890). See 

Sky River, LLC, 134 FERC ¶ 61,064, at P 13 (2011) 

(for an order rejecting a CFA between unaffiliated 

parties and denying waiver of the requirements of 

Order Nos. 888 and 890). But see Ashtabula Wind, 

LLC, 127 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 10 (2009) (granting 

waiver of the OATT requirements of Order Nos. 888 

and 890 in the context of a Common Facilities 

Agreement between two unaffiliated parties). 

be disadvantaged or discouraged from 

constructing generator lead lines. 

Instead, these commenters favor any 

future policies or clarifications of 

existing policy to be based on the type 

of facility being constructed, not on the 

entity that is proposing to own the 

facility.42

II. Discussion 

A. Scope of Inquiry 

18. In this NOI, the Commission seeks 

comment on various options for 

addressing third-party access to and 

priority rights on interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities. 

Appendix B to this document provides 

a schematic and explanation of what the 

Commission believes to be a typical 

situation. Much of the discussion and 

questions in this NOI derive from this 

understanding. As discussed above, 

Order No. 2003 addresses third party 

use of transmission provider 

interconnection facilities, but not 

interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities. With a goal of 

ensuring that a third party generator 

(G2) may be able to interconnect to 

interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities that in some 

instances have been 30, 50, or even 

hundreds of miles long, and up to 345 

kV, the Commission has in a series of 

recent cases treated interconnection 

customer interconnection facilities as 

transmission facilities for purposes of 

open access policies and required that 

the original developer (G1) file an OATT 

within 60 days of a request for service 

on these facilities. In light of comments 

received, and as discussed in the 

sections that follow, the Commission 

seeks comments on two alternative 

approaches to govern third-party use 

and priority rights to use: (1) Continued 

use of an OATT framework with 

potential modification and clarification, 

including the potential introduction of a 

safe harbor period, and a case-by-case 

determination on the generation 

developer’s priority rights; or (2) use of 

a LGIA/LGIP framework in which the 

existing LGIA provisions that govern 

third-party use of transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities 

would be extended to interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities. In 

addition to the details of each approach, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

relative ability of each to meet customer 

needs while ensuring that the rates, 

terms, and conditions of jurisdictional 

services remain just and reasonable and 

not unduly discriminatory. 

19. At the outset, however, the 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

scope of our inquiry in this proceeding 

and whether, as a threshold matter, 

there is a need to reconsider existing 

Commission policies. With the passage 

of time, concerns raised at the March 

2011 technical conference and in 

subsequent comments may have been 

addressed as the industry has 

considered the Commission’s existing 

precedent. If not, additional views on 

what approach would be most effective 

in addressing third-party requests for 

service and/or evaluating priority rights 

on interconnection facilities would be 

useful. The Commission encourages 

commenters to discuss their views of 

the needs of their business models in 

the context of the Commission’s open 

access and interconnection policies, 

which are designed to ensure that 

transmission service is made available 

on terms that are just and reasonable 

and not unduly discriminatory. 

20. As noted above, the Commission 

intends that the focus of this proceeding 

is on interconnection customers’ 

interconnection facilities as a class of 

facilities. If commenters disagree that 

this is the set of facilities at issue, then 

they should explain their understanding 

of the facilities at issue (referencing the 

drawing in Appendix B) and respond to 

the questions below in terms of the set 

of facilities they believe is at issue, and 

clarify that they are doing so. Similarly, 

if commenters distinguish application of 

certain policies based on the size of a 

facility or other characteristics, then 

they should respond to the questions 

below in terms of the relevant 

characteristics, and clarify that they are 

doing so. 

21. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on these issues: 

i. To what specific set of facilities are 

commenters’ concerns directed? That is, are 

commenters’ concerns directed toward access 

to interconnection customer interconnection 

facilities, or to both interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities and transmission 

provider interconnection facilities? 

ii. Is requiring interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities to provide thirdparty access under an OATT framework 

necessary to ensure against undue 

discrimination and ensure just and 

reasonable rates, given that developers of 

remote generation are building 

interconnection facilities of considerable 

length and/or size? 

iii. Has the Commission’s current policy 

blurred the pre-existing line between 

interconnection service and transmission 

service with respect to providing for thirdparty access to interconnection facilities in 

such a way as to create unintended 

consequences? 

iv. Has industry largely adapted to current 

Commission policy such that the 

Commission should continue its current 

policy? If not, should the Commission 

respond to concerns expressed at the 

Technical Conference with (a) potential 

clarification of and modification to its 

current policy of treating interconnection 

facilities under the OATT framework; or (b) 

adoption of a framework under which it 

would consider issues of third-party access 

and priority rights under its interconnection 

rules and procedures? 

v. Should the Commission consider 

different treatment for larger versus smaller 

interconnection facilities, e.g., treating larger 

interconnection facilities under the OATT 

framework and smaller interconnection 

facilities under the LGIA/LGIP framework? If 

so, what would be the appropriate threshold 

for separating large versus small 

interconnection facilities (e.g., voltage, miles, 

or potential third party interconnection)? 

Should any distinctions be made among 

existing interconnection facilities, planned 

expansions of existing interconnection 

facilities, and new interconnection facilities, 

for any of the options? 

vi. From commenters’ perspective, is there 

a meaningful distinction between the 

interconnection/operation of facilities 

proposed to provide independent 

transmission service (e.g., Chinook 43) and 

generator interconnection facilities of long 

length and high voltage (e.g., Terra Gen I)? 

vii. Are there circumstances under which 

it would be feasible and/or desirable to allow 

the generation developer to choose whether 

its interconnection facilities would be 

governed by the OATT framework or the 

LGIA/LGIP framework, with the attendant 

rights and responsibilities of either choice? 

viii. For purposes of access policies, 

should the Commission distinguish between 

affiliates and nonaffiliates even when parties 

have otherwise agreed to the terms and 

conditions of access to the facilities? 

ix. Are there additional approaches that the 

Commission should consider? Be specific as 

to details. For example, commenters mention 

common facilities agreements (CFAs) as a 

means for parties to agree on access to 

interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities.44 Commenters also mention a 

rebuttable de minimis exception for small 

interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities. 

x. To the extent that the concerns regarding 

third-party use and priority rights do not 

exist for transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities, why would a 

generation developer that builds its own 

interconnection facilities choose to retain 

operational control of them as opposed to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24651 

45Transcript at 128 (citing Kurt Adams of First 

Wind). 

46 Gradient at 7. 

47Edison Mission at 24. 

48BP Wind at 8; NextEra at 20–21. 

49NextEra at 20–21. 

turning them over to the transmission 

provider? 

B. Alternative Approaches for Comment 

1. Open Access Transmission Tariff 

Framework 

22. If the Commission were to 

maintain reliance on the existing OATT 

framework, should it be modified to 

recognize the characteristics of 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities and needs of 

generation developers? 

a. Clarification of Specific Plans and 

Milestones Evaluation 

23. Our current case-by-case policy of 

determining a generation developer’s 

priority rights to its interconnection 

facilities provides a degree of flexibility 

and recognizes that there is not 

necessarily a standard method for 

development of generation projects. 

However, as mentioned above, some 

commenters voice concerns that the 

Commission’s current case-by-case 

evaluation of generation developers’ 

requests for priority rights on their 

interconnection facilities based on the 

demonstration of specific plans and 

milestones for construction of their 

generation projects is not clear. To 

address this concern, the Commission 

could be more prescriptive on the 

‘‘specific plans and milestones’’ 

standard to provide direction to 

generation developers seeking to 

establish their firm priority rights. Such 

requirements could include the type of 

evidence that would be indicative of 

sufficient ‘‘specific plans and 

milestones,’’ and the factors to be 

considered in determining whether 

‘‘material progress has been made.’’ 

24. The Commission seeks comment 

on issues related to the evaluation of 

specific plans and milestones in 

requests for priority rights to use 

capacity on interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities. Specifically: 

i. Should the Commission continue its 

practice of evaluating requests for priority 

rights for interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities on a case-by-case 

basis? If so, should the existing standards 

used to evaluate sufficiency of evidence to 

demonstrate priority be clarified or modified? 

How? 

ii. Should the Commission require 

generation developers to meet a given set of 

uniform criteria to secure priority rights? If 

so, what are the necessary criteria and what 

types of evidence are sufficient to 

demonstrate these criteria? Or, should 

generation developers have the flexibility to 

demonstrate the sufficiency of their plans 

based on various criteria, and what might 

these criteria be? In this regard, how should 

the Commission balance needs for regulatory 

certainty and flexibility? 

b. OATT Filing Trigger 

25. The Commission’s current policy 

to grant waiver of the requirement to file 

an OATT prior to the receipt of a thirdparty request for transmission is 

designed to reduce the regulatory 

burden on entities that did not intend to 

be transmission providers. However, as 

noted above, several commenters 

express concern with the existing 

standard for what constitutes a valid 

third-party request for service on 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities. One panelist 

suggests that the standard for a thirdparty request should be at least to match 

the level of generation development that 

has been demonstrated by the original 

interconnection customer,45 although 

one commenter argues that this is an 

impossible standard because a 

generation developer is limited in how 

far it can proceed with its project until 

it has secured transmission capacity.46

One commenter also argues that 

generation developers should be 

allowed to require that transmission 

customers satisfy more stringent 

creditworthiness standards than 

currently required, because generation 

developers, in forming their business 

models and capital structure, do not 

contemplate taking on significant credit 

risks of competing generators.47

26. Some commenters suggest 

modifying the rules for when and under 

what circumstances an OATT would 

need to be filed. For example, 

commenters argue that extending the 

current 60-day requirement to file an 

OATT is justified because of a 

possibility that a third party requesting 

service might withdraw after the 

generation developer has incurred 

significant costs in putting an OATT 

into place, including the internal 

structure to administer it.48 One 

commenter suggests requiring the 

generation developer to file a notice of 

a request for service within a certain 

number of days after receiving a request, 

and requiring them to file an OATT only 

after a generation interconnection 

agreement or a transmission service 

agreement is executed. They argue that 

this process would allow the generation 

developer to focus on performing the 

necessary studies instead of filing an 

OATT.49

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on issues related to third-party requests 

and when to require an OATT to be 

filed. Specifically: 

i. Should the Commission alter the 

standard for what constitutes a third-party 

request for service on interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities? If so, 

what should the standard be? What would be 

the advantages and disadvantages of doing 

so, compared to current policy? 

ii. Should the standard that is required for 

a third-party request for service be the same 

standard that is required for the original 

interconnection customer (or its affiliate) to 

request priority rights, i.e., the specific plans 

and milestones demonstration discussed 

above? Why or why not? Would this raise 

confidentiality concerns, and if so, how 

could those be mitigated or avoided? 

iii. Should the Commission alter the 

requirement that a third-party request triggers 

an OATT Filing requirement by the original 

interconnection customer within 60 days of 

receipt of a request for service? If so, how? 

iv. If the Commission were to alter the 

requirement that a third-party request triggers 

an OATT Filing requirement by the original 

interconnection customer, should there be 

different approaches when affiliates gain 

access to the interconnection facilities as 

opposed to when nonaffiliates gain access? 

v. Would it enhance regulatory certainty 

for the Commission to amend the LGIA to 

include contractual terms apprising the 

interconnection customer that it will become 

a transmission provider if a third party 

requests transmission service over its 

interconnection customer interconnection 

facilities? 

vi. Would the creation of a pro forma 

tailored OATT (discussed below) ease the 

burden on the generation developer to the 

point that the existing 60-day window for 

filing an OATT would be sufficient? 

vii. Some commenters argue that under 

current Commission policy, third parties 

must make up to four sequential requests for 

service (for interconnection and transmission 

services, from both the original 

interconnection customer and the 

transmission provider) to deliver their power. 

These commenters use this as an argument in 

favor of using the LGIA/LGIP framework. Is 

there a way under the OATT framework to 

coordinate the requests that a third party 

would need to make? 

c. Tailored OATT 

28. Order No. 888 set forth a pro 

forma tariff that provides standardized 

terms and conditions for the provision 

of open access transmission service. The 

unique features of interconnection 

facilities may warrant tailoring the 

terms and conditions of the OATT to 

correspond to these unique features for 

providing open access transmission 

service. One option for recognizing 

these differences and for responding to 

the concerns laid out above may be to 

continue to use a pro forma OATT 

framework but, on a generic basis, 

modify the pro forma OATT to establish 

a tailored set of terms and conditions for 

service, i.e., a pro forma ‘‘tailored 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24652 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

50See Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 29; 

Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, 135 FERC ¶ 61,134, at 

P 12 (2011) (Terra-Gen III). 

51See Sagebrush, 130 FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 29; 

Terra-Gen III, 135 FERC ¶ 61,134 at PP 31–33. 

52See, e.g., SCE at 4; Edison Mission at 13–14; 

Puget at 6; NextEra at 6; and First Wind at 7. 

53NextEra at 2–3. 

54NextEra at Attachment 1. 

55CAHW at 23–24; Edison Mission at 22; NextEra 

at 15–16; and First Wind at 6–7. 

56AWEA at 11; NextEra at 13. 

57AWEA at 11; Edison Mission at 25; and 

NextEra at 11–12. 

58NextEra at 19–20; AWEA at 12; CAHW at 23; 

and NU/NSTAR at 7–8. 59See, e.g., CAHW at 23; NextEra at 9–11. 60CAHW at 23–24. 61 Id. at 24. 62Edison Mission at 27. They note the 

Commission rejected this idea in Sagebrush, 130 

FERC ¶ 61,093 at P 52, but has allowed the use of 

a single set of procedures and a single agreement 

by the Midwest ISO. 63 Invenergy at 11. 64See, e.g., NextEra at 14–15; CAHW at 23; and 

Invenergy at 9–10. 

65CAHW at 23. 

66NextEra at Attachment 1. 

OATT,’’ that would apply to a welldefined set of interconnection facilities. 

29. The Commission has previously 

granted waiver of specific provisions of 

the pro forma OATT to accommodate 

unique situations. For instance, as 

mentioned above, because 

interconnection facilities are not 

networked facilities, the Commission 

has granted waiver of the pro forma 

OATT requirement to provide network 

services on interconnection facilities.50

Also, because the transmission provider 

to which the interconnection facilities 

are interconnected is required to have 

an OATT that provides for ancillary 

services on a non-discriminatory basis, 

and because of the physical limitations 

of interconnection facilities, the 

Commission has granted waiver of the 

pro forma OATT requirement to provide 

ancillary services.51

30. Many generation developers argue 

that the pro forma OATT is not wellsuited for interconnection facilities and 

that these facilities should either be 

substantially or entirely exempt from 

pro forma OATT requirements.52 Some 

of those commenters argue that using a 

tailored OATT could address several of 

the concerns with existing policy by 

lessening the time, expense, and other 

burdens inherent in developing, filing, 

and administering an OATT. 

Proponents also argue that this 

approach would reduce confusion and 

the risk of inconsistency, which is 

heightened by employing a case-by-case 

waiver approach.53

31. Several participants in the 

Technical Conference identify pro 

forma OATT provisions they believe 

could be eliminated to create a pro 

forma tailored OATT. One commenter 

submitted a proposed pro forma ‘‘Radial 

OATT.’’ 54 Commenters argue that the 

network service provisions,55 the 

requirement to provide scheduling 

services,56 and the requirement to 

provide ancillary services,57 all 

provisions which the Commission has 

previously waived for interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities, 

should be removed from a tailored 

OATT framework. 

32. Additionally, commenters argue 

that some other provisions the 

Commission has not waived are 

inappropriate for interconnection 

facilities. Specifically, commenters 

argue that requiring generation 

developers to adopt comparable 

Attachment K transmission planning 

process procedures makes little sense, 

and that instead the Commission should 

direct the generation developer, after 

receiving a request for service, to 

participate in the interconnecting 

transmission provider’s Attachment K 

process.58 Commenters also suggest that 

the pro forma OATT requirement to 

calculate Available Transfer Capability 

may be inapplicable to interconnection 

facilities.59 Additionally, one 

commenter argues that developing rates 

for point-to-point transmission service 

for Schedules 7 and 8 may be 

particularly burdensome for generation 

developers not experienced with 

traditional rate regulation and that do 

not usually follow the Uniform System 

of Accounts,60 and also suggests waiver 

of the Open Access Same-Time 

Information System and the Standards 

of Conduct.61 Another commenter 

suggests allowing generation developers 

to use a single set of interconnection 

procedures and a single interconnection 

agreement for all generators, instead of 

separate procedures and agreements for 

large and small generators, because 

there is a limited set of potential 

customers.62 Another commenter argues 

that generation developers should not 

have an obligation to expand their 

interconnection facilities if there is 

insufficient capacity for a third party’s 

intended use.63

33. Commenters also identify 

provisions in the pro forma OATT that 

they think should be modified in a 

tailored OATT framework. For instance, 

several commenters argue that, while 

the pro forma OATT requires the use of 

average line losses, it is appropriate for 

interconnection facilities to use 

incremental line losses, because they are 

discrete facilities and do not form a 

network.64 One commenter asserts that 

allocating average line losses under 

section 15.7 of the pro forma OATT fails 

to recognize that each successive user 

increases the losses borne by earlier 

users because losses increase as the line 

becomes fully used, and can render the 

power contracts of earlier users 

uneconomical or interfere with their 

ability to supply contracted power.65

34. The Commission seeks comments 

on these issues. Specifically: 

i. Would a pro forma tailored OATT 

accomplish the Commission’s goals of 

ensuring non-discriminatory access? Is a pro 

forma tailored OATT appropriate in these 

circumstances, or should the Commission 

continue to evaluate requests for waiver of 

certain pro forma OATT provisions on 

interconnection facilities on a case-by-case 

basis? 

ii. Does a pro forma tailored OATT provide 

developers clarity beyond that which has 

already been established by Commission 

precedent on the applicability of the pro 

forma OATT to interconnection facilities? 

iii. How does a pro forma tailored OATT 

framework compare to the other options 

presented here in terms of commercial 

viability? 

iv. What are the relative benefits and 

drawbacks of the pro forma tailored OATT 

framework as compared to the existing 

policy? How should the Commission 

distinguish use of a pro forma tailored OATT 

for interconnection facilities and use of the 

pro forma OATT for public utility 

transmission providers that have divested 

their generation and thus may have limited 

ability to provide all OATT services, e.g., 

ancillary services? Similarly, should the 

Commission distinguish interconnection 

facilities that may use a pro forma tailored 

OATT from transmission facilities that may 

typically receive waiver of some pro forma 

OATT provisions, such as merchant 

transmission lines? If so, how? 

v. Identify the pro forma OATT provisions 

that should be excluded from a pro forma 

tailored OATT. Why should these be 

excluded? 

vi. What, if any, new or modified 

provisions only applicable to interconnection 

facilities should be added to a pro forma 

tailored OATT? Why? 

vii. If the Commission were to pursue a pro 

forma tailored OATT, should the 

Commission adopt the proposed pro forma 

Radial OATT submitted by NextEra? 66 Please 

explain and be specific as to any changes that 

would need to be made to that proposal. 

viii. If a pro forma tailored OATT did not 

include a requirement to provide ancillary 

services, would relying on the public utility 

transmission provider to provide these 

services create an undue burden on the 

public utility transmission provider? 

ix. Should all interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities be eligible to 

provide service under a tailored OATT? If 

not, which facilities should be excluded? Is 

the size of the facilities (for example, length, 

capacity, voltage) relevant to being eligible 

for tailored OATT treatment? 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24653 

67 Milford, 129 FERC ¶ 61,149 at P 23. 

68AWEA, BP, CAHW, Edison Mission, First 

Wind, Gradient, Invenergy, NextEra, and Sempra. 

69Puget at 8; Edison Mission at 17; Allete at 2; 

SCE at 3–4; and MidAmerican at 15–16. 

70Puget at 15. 

71Edison Mission at 18 (referencing definitions in 

LGIA section 1). 

72Puget at 9–10. 

73 Id. 

74See, e.g., Edison Mission at 18. 

75 Id. 

76Edison Mission at 19. 

77Puget at 8; Edison Mission at 19; and SCE at 

3–4. 

d. Safe Harbor 

35. A variation on the OATT 

framework is a safe harbor period. 

Within a safe harbor the generation 

developer would have a grace period in 

which the open access rules determined 

to be relevant for interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities 

would not apply, to allow for the 

phased development of generation 

projects over that period. Accordingly, a 

generation developer would be assumed 

to have priority rights to capacity on its 

interconnection facilities during the safe 

harbor period. 

36. The Commission previously 

rejected a proposal for a safe harbor 

period of firm priority rights in Milford, 

stating that such a period would be 

inconsistent with Commission 

precedent granting waiver of open 

access requirements unless and until the 

owner of the line receives a request for 

transmission service.67 Nevertheless, 

many of the commenters 68 suggest this 

option as a means to protect generation 

developers’ priority rights to use their 

interconnection facilities for their 

phased generation project development. 

37. The Commission seeks comments 

on issues related to a safe harbor period. 

Specifically: 

i. Is a safe harbor period a viable approach? 

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the 

safe harbor period approach, as compared 

with the current case by case demonstration 

of specific plans and milestones, or the other 

options presented herein? For instance, to 

what extent could such a safe harbor period 

be used as a means to prevent others from 

accessing the transmission system? 

ii. If the Commission were to institute a 

safe harbor period, should a generation 

developer be allowed to provide access to its 

interconnection facilities to others during the 

safe harbor period? If so, how should the 

Commission guard against discriminatory 

access? 

iii. If the Commission were to institute a 

safe harbor period, could the Commission 

adopt for the safe harbor period the 

requirement, currently applicable where the 

Commission has granted priority rights, that 

a generation developer make any currently 

unused capacity available to third parties 

until such time as its future generation 

projects come on line, in a way that is 

consistent with the objectives of a safe harbor 

period? 

iv. What would be the appropriate duration 

for the safe harbor period? Should there be 

differences in the duration of the safe harbor 

period based upon different resource types 

(geothermal, wind, solar, etc.)? If so, how can 

such distinctions be justified? 

v. Should a safe harbor period be 

established to begin automatically from some 

fixed milestone date (e.g., such as the inservice date of the interconnection facilities)? 

If so, what should that milestone be? Or, 

should a developer be required to make a 

demonstration before it qualifies for a safe 

harbor (e.g., such as plans for phased 

generation development)? If the latter, what 

should be required to make such 

demonstration? 

vi. What types of interconnection facilities 

should qualify, and how should a generation 

developer identify itself as one that is 

pursuing phased generation development? 

Should there be an upper or lower limit on 

physical characteristics of the 

interconnection facilities such as length, 

voltage, capacity, etc. to qualify for safe 

harbor treatment? 

vii. Should there be intermediate 

development requirements to maintain safe 

harbor status? What would these 

requirements be? If requirements are not 

satisfied, what consequences are appropriate? 

2. LGIA/LGIP 

38. An alternative framework for 

dealing with third-party requests for 

service and priority rights on 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities would be to 

rely on a modified version of the LGIA/ 

LGIP. Some commenters suggest 

expanding section 9.9.2 of the pro forma 

LGIA, which addresses third-party 

access to transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities, to apply to 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities as well, and 

argue that doing so would render 

unnecessary the requirement for the 

generation developer to file an OATT.69

They argue that this would provide 

access to interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities in the same 

manner that access to transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities is 

now provided.70 One commenter 

suggests that the Commission could also 

revise the definition of Affected System 

to include interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities specifically, 

which would mean that these facilities 

would be studied as part of subsequent 

interconnection studies performed by 

the transmission provider for other 

interconnection customers, because an 

interconnection system impact study is 

defined in the pro forma LGIA as ‘‘an 

engineering study that evaluates the 

impact of the proposed interconnection 

on the safety and reliability of 

Transmission Provider’s Transmission 

System and, if applicable, an Affected 

System.’’ 71 Commenters also propose 

that, under an LGIA framework, third 

parties should apply directly to the 

transmission provider (and not the 

generation developer) for access to 

excess capacity on the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities at 

the same time that they apply for service 

on the transmission provider’s 

interconnection facilities and 

transmission system.72 These 

commenters argue that this process 

would be preferable to the 

Commission’s current policy, under 

which a new interconnection customer 

could be required to negotiate separately 

with the generation developer and the 

transmission provider. Commenters 

further argue that involving the 

transmission provider at the onset of the 

process is more efficient because the 

transmission provider is critical to 

assessing system impacts, providing 

support such as ancillary services, and 

coordinating reliability issues.73

39. Commenters add that section 9.9.2 

of the pro forma LGIA recognizes an 

opportunity for interconnection 

customers and the transmission 

provider to negotiate a multi-party 

agreement to determine the amount of 

compensation owed to an 

interconnection customer for capital 

expenses related to the transmission 

provider’s interconnection facilities, as 

well as the allocation of on-going 

expenses.74 Some commenters suggest 

that the Commission could develop a 

pro forma multi-party agreement to be 

used by entities in negotiating under 

section 9.9.2.75

40. Generally, commenters argue that 

treating a third-party request for access 

to interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities as an 

interconnection request is a pragmatic 

approach that more accurately 

characterizes the service being sought, 

and eliminates the unduly burdensome 

and costly obligations imposed upon 

generation developers under the 

Commission’s current policies which 

commenters assert impede the 

development of location-constrained 

renewable generation.76 Commenters 

characterize expanding section 9.9.2 of 

the pro forma LGIA as an 

administratively simple and less 

onerous way to facilitate access to 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities.77

41. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether treating third-party use of 

interconnection facilities as 

interconnection service is a workable 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
24654 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

78LGIP section 3.3.1. 

79See LGIP section 6.2 and 7.3. 

alternative to current Commission 

policy. Specifically: 

i. If the Commission were to expand 

section 9.9.2 to govern third party use of 

interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities, what would prevent the original 

interconnection customer from evading 

negotiations with the third party (which is 

likely its competitor), withholding capacity 

for reasons other than a legitimate planned 

project, or putting excessive cost 

responsibilities on the third party? 

ii. Would extending section 9.9.2 as 

discussed above be sufficient to enable the 

transmission provider to facilitate granting 

third parties access to the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities? Or 

would other arrangements or modifications 

to the pro forma LGIA be needed to give the 

transmission provider that ability? For 

example, what commercial arrangements 

between the transmission provider and the 

original interconnection customer would be 

required to enable third-party 

interconnection to the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities? 

iii. What are the benefits and drawbacks of 

a third party requesting interconnection 

service from the transmission provider, 

rather than from the original interconnection 

customer? 

iv. Should the pro forma LGIA be modified 

to include an obligation to expand the 

existing capacity of the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities to 

accommodate a third-party request for 

interconnection service? If so, should the 

obligation apply to the original 

interconnection customer or the transmission 

provider? Would such a modification be 

consistent with the roles and responsibilities 

established in the rest of the pro forma LGIA 

for whichever party the obligation applies to 

(i.e., either the original interconnection 

customer or the transmission provider)? 

v. Are there other issues associated with 

third-party use of the interconnection 

customer’s interconnection facilities that 

would require other modifications to the pro 

forma LGIA? If so, what are the issues, and 

what would these modifications be? For 

example, as the term is defined in the pro 

forma LGIA, interconnection facilities are 

‘‘sole use’’ facilities. If the Commission were 

to rely on the interconnection rules and 

procedures to govern third party use of 

interconnection facilities, would we need to 

eliminate language in the LGIA/LGIP that 

refers to these as ‘‘sole use’’ facilities? If so, 

what would be the collateral consequences? 

vi. In addition to the modifications to the 

pro forma LGIA/LGIP identified above, 

would there be benefit in the Commission 

developing other pro forma agreements to 

facilitate third-party access to the 

interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities (e.g., pro forma multi-party agency 

agreements, service agreements, cost-sharing 

agreements, etc.), or should those agreements 

be developed by the affected entities and 

reviewed by the Commission on a case-bycase basis? 

vii. How would expanding the pro forma 

LGIA to govern third-party requests for 

service on the interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities otherwise solve the 

concerns identified above? Are there other 

concerns with current Commission policy on 

access to interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities that would remain 

under an LGIA/LGIP framework? 

viii. Should there be a limit (e.g., with 

respect to voltage, capacity, or length) to the 

interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities that would qualify for treatment 

under the LGIA/LGIP framework discussed 

above? 

ix. How would an LGIA/LGIP approach 

compare to the other options presented here 

in terms of commercial viability and 

removing barriers to the development of 

location-constrained generation? 

42. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how priority rights to 

interconnection customer’s 

interconnection facilities for phased 

generation development would work 

within an LGIA/LGIP framework. In 

making a valid interconnection request 

under the pro forma LGIP, an 

interconnection customer must submit 

(1) A $10,000 deposit, (2) a completed 

application with detailed generator data 

(Appendix 1 of the LGIP), and (3) a 

demonstration of site control or post an 

additional deposit of $10,000.78

Additionally, the LGIA stipulates 

various milestones that must be logged 

with dates for completion in Appendix 

B of the LGIA. If future generation 

phases are included in an initial request 

for interconnection service, then 

meeting these milestones as a means to 

demonstrate intended future use of the 

facilities would arguably be similar in 

substance to the Commission’s current 

policy of demonstrating plans and 

milestones to secure priority rights, 

though relying solely on the 

interconnection rules and procedures 

for securing priority rights would 

nevertheless be a different approach 

than the Commission’s current policy of 

demonstrating plans and milestones. 

The LGIP stipulates that a generator 

with a higher queued interconnection 

request or an executed LGIA (or 

unexecuted LGIA that a party has 

requested be filed with the Commission) 

is included in the base case for any 

subsequent Interconnection Feasibility 

or System Impact Study.79 So as long as 

the initial interconnection request or 

executed LGIA includes later phases of 

a generation project, under the 

interconnection rules and procedures 

with a modified section 9.9.2 to include 

interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities, the generation 

developer would not risk losing its 

planned interconnection service simply 

because a third party also seeks to use 

the interconnection customer 

interconnection facilities. Rather, the 

full capacity of the original 

interconnection customer’s request, 

including capacity for future phases of 

generation if those are included in the 

original LGIA that was developed, is 

unavailable for use by any third party. 

This is currently how the transmission 

provider treats transmission provider 

interconnection facilities when it 

studies a new interconnection request. 

The Commission seeks comment, 

however, on whether this is a viable and 

fair approach for demonstrating and 

securing priority rights to capacity for 

phased generation projects. Specifically: 

i. For generation projects that are built in 

phases, is it possible and/or typical to request 

the interconnection facilities be constructed 

in such a manner as to accommodate the 

capacity for future phases in an initial 

interconnection request and/or LGIA? How 

have developers been submitting 

interconnection requests and executing 

LGIAs for phased projects; i.e., have 

developers been including the capacity 

necessary for future generation phases in the 

initial interconnection request under LGIP? 

ii. How would the LGIA/LGIP approach fit 

with the current standard of demonstrating 

plans and milestones on a case-by-case basis 

to receive priority rights for future phases of 

a generation project? Does the existing pro 

forma LGIA/LGIP contain a sufficiently clear 

procedure, e.g., in submitting and 

maintaining a valid interconnection request 

and meeting the milestones set forth in 

Appendix B, such that this procedure might 

serve a similar purpose as the current 

standard of demonstrating specific plans and 

milestones? 

iii. If no separate priority rights request for 

a generation developer to establish capacity 

rights for its interconnection facilities would 

be necessary, what are the benefits and/or 

drawbacks of such an approach? 

iv. How would adopting an LGIA/LGIP 

framework otherwise affect generation 

developers seeking priority rights on their 

interconnection customer’s interconnection 

facilities for their phased generation projects? 

If the generation developer plans to 

eventually use currently unused capacity on 

interconnection facilities, should the pro 

forma LGIA be modified to require that 

capacity on interconnection facilities be 

made available for third-party use until the 

generation developer is ready to use that 

capacity? 

III. Comment Procedures 

43. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

matters, issues and specific questions 

identified in this notice. Comments are 

due 45 days from publication in the 

Federal Register. Comments must refer 

to Docket No. AD12–14, and must 

include the commenter’s name, the 

organization they represent, if 

applicable, and their address in their 

comments. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24655 

44. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

45. Commenters unable to file 

comments electronically must mail or 

hand deliver an original and copy of 

their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

46. 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. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

IV. Document Availability 

47. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through 

FERC’s Home Page (http://www.ferc.

gov) and in FERC’s Public Reference 

Room during normal business hours 

(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 

First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, 

DC 20426. 

48. From FERC’s Home Page on the 

Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available on eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

49. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

normal business hours from FERC 

Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the 

Public Reference Room at public.

referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

Appendix A 

List of Commenters and Participants in 

Docket No. AD11–11–000 

Adam Wenner * 

Allete, Inc. d/b/a Minnesota Power 

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Anbaric Transmission (Anbaric) 

BP Wind Energy North America (BP Wind) 

California High Wind Partners (CAHW) 

Clean Line Energy Partners (Clean Line) 

Duke Energy (Duke) 

Edison Mission Energy (Edison Mission) 

Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) 

First Wind Holdings (First Wind) 

Gradient Resources (Gradient) 

Grasslands Renewable Energy (Grasslands) 

Horizon Wind Energy LLC (Horizon) 

Invenergy Wind & Invenergy Thermal 

(Invenergy) 

LS Power Transmission (LS Power) 

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. 

(MidAmerican) 

National Grid USA (National Grid) 

NextEra Energy Resources (NextEra) 

Northeast Utilities (Northeast) 

Northwestern Energy (Northwestern) 

Pattern Transmission (Pattern) 

Puget Sound Energy (Puget) 

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) 

Sempra Generation (Sempra) 

Shell Wind Energy (Shell) 

Southern California Edison (SCE) 

Southern Co. (Southern) 

Tonbridge Power (Tonbridge) 

Transmission Access Policy Study Group 

(TAPS) 

Transmission Developers, Inc. (TDI) 

United Illuminating Co. (United) 

Western Independent Transmission Group 

(WITG) 

Zephyr Power Transmission (Zephyr) 

* Comments filed after due date. 

Appendix B 

Order No. 2003 addresses third party use 

of Transmission Provider Interconnection 

Facilities, which are those that are owned, 

controlled, or operated by the Transmission 

Provider. Order No. 2003 permits the 

interconnection customer to build, own, 

control, and operate interconnection 

facilities, which are then defined as 

Interconnection Customer Interconnection 

Facilities under the LGIP/LGIA, but Order 

No. 2003 does not address third party use of 

Interconnection Customer Interconnection 

Facilities. With a goal of ensuring that a third 

party generator (G2 in the above schematic) 

may be able to interconnect to 

Interconnection Customer Interconnection 

Facilities that in some instances have been 

30, 50, or even hundreds of miles long, the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP25AP12.003</GPH>
24656 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Ports of entry for immigration purposes are 

currently listed at 8 CFR 100.4. 

Commission has in a series of recent cases 

considered these Interconnection Customer 

Interconnection Facilities to be open access 

transmission facilities and required that the 

original developer (G1 in the above 

schematic) file an OATT within 60 days of 

a request for service on these facilities. In 

light of comments received, this NOI seeks 

feedback on whether the filing of an OATT, 

modifications to the LGIA/LGIP, or other 

means are better for addressing third-party 

access to facilities at issue here. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9848 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 101 

[Docket No. USCBP–2012–0006] 

Extension of Port Limits of 

Indianapolis, IN 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) is proposing to extend 

the geographical limits of the port of 

entry of Indianapolis, Indiana. The 

proposed extension will make the 

boundaries more easily identifiable to 

the public and will allow for uniform 

and continuous service to the extended 

area of Indianapolis, Indiana. The 

proposed change is part of CBP’s 

continuing program to use its personnel, 

facilities, and resources more efficiently, 

and to provide better service to carriers, 

importers, and the general public. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

via docket number USCBP–2012–0006. 

• Mail: Border Security Regulations 

Branch, Office of International Trade, 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Mint Annex, 799 9th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20229–1179. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments 

submitted will be available for public 

inspection in accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552) and 19 CFR 103.11(b) on normal 

business days between the hours of 9 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Border 

Security Regulations Branch, Office of 

International Trade, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 799 9th Street NW., 

5th Floor, Washington, DC. 

Arrangements to inspect submitted 

comments should be made in advance 

by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325– 

0118. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Kaplan, Office of Field 

Operations, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, (202) 325–4543, or by email 

at Roger.Kaplan@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of the 

proposed rule. CBP also invites 

comments that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this proposed rule. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to CBP will reference a 

specific portion of the proposed rule, 

explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include data, 

information, or authority that support 

such recommended change. 

II. Background 

As part of its continuing efforts to use 

CBP’s personnel, facilities, and 

resources more efficiently, and to 

provide better service to carriers, 

importers, and the general public, CBP 

is proposing to extend the limits of the 

Indianapolis, Indiana, port of entry. CBP 

ports of entry are locations where CBP 

officers and employees are assigned to 

accept entries of merchandise, clear 

passengers, collect duties, and enforce 

the various provisions of customs, 

immigration, agriculture, and related 

U.S. laws at the border. The term ‘‘port 

of entry’’ is used in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) in title 8 for 

immigration purposes and in title 19 for 

customs purposes. For customs 

purposes, CBP regulations list 

designated CBP ports of entry and the 

limits of each port in section 101.3(b)(1) 

of title 19 (19 CFR 101.3(b)(1)).1

Indianapolis was designated as a 

customs port of entry by the President’s 

message of March 3, 1913, concerning a 

reorganization of the customs service 

pursuant to the Act of August 24, 1912 

(37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1). Although 

CBP is not aware of any document 

which specifically sets forth the 

geographical boundaries of the 

Indianapolis port of entry, the port 

limits are generally understood to be the 

corporate limits of the city of 

Indianapolis. 

In 1970, by act of the Indiana 

legislature, the city of Indianapolis 

consolidated with the surrounding 

county of Marion. However, four 

municipalities within Marion County 

remained excluded from the corporate 

limits of Indianapolis. Additionally, 

members of the trade community have 

expressed a need for CBP services in 

areas west and south of the city limits. 

CBP would like to extend the 

boundaries of the port of entry of 

Indianapolis, Indiana, to include all the 

territory within the boundaries of 

Marion County, Indiana, as well as 

portions of the neighboring counties of 

Boone, Hendricks, and Johnson. This 

update is necessary to clarify the 

geographic limits of the port. The 

update will also allow CBP to better 

serve the public in the greater 

Indianapolis area, by providing regular 

service to (1) municipalities within 

Indianapolis that are not technically 

within the city limits, and to (2) 

locations to the immediate west and 

south of the city. The proposed change 

in the boundaries of the port of 

Indianapolis, Indiana, will not result in 

a change in the service that is provided 

to the public by the port and will not 

require a change in the staffing or 

workload at the port. 

III. Proposed Port Limits of 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

The new port limits of Indianapolis, 

Indiana, are proposed as follows: 

In the State of Indiana, all of Marion 

County; that part of Boone County 

which is west of Interstate Route 65 and 

east of State Route 39; that part of 

Hendricks County which is east of State 

Route 39; and that part of Johnson 

County which is east of State Route 37, 

north of State Route 144, and west of 

Interstate Route 65. 

CBP has included a map of the 

proposed port limits in the docket as 

‘‘Attachment: Port of Entry of 

Indianapolis—Proposed Limits.’’ 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

DHS does not consider this proposed 

rule to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, as supplemented by Executive 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1