42296 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

airspace at Villa Rica, GA (63 FR 33591).

A Global Positioning System (GPS)

Runway (RWY) 10 Standard Instrument

Approach Procedure (SIAP) has been

developed for Stockmar Airport. As a

result, controlled airspace extending

upward from 700 feet Above Ground

Level (AGL) is needed to accommodate

the SIAP and for Instrument Flight

Rules (IFR) operations at Stockmar

Airport. The operating status of the

airport will change from Visual Flight

Rules (VFR) to include IFR operations

concurrent with the publication of the

SIAP.

Conclusion

The NPRM published on June 19,

1998, (63 FR 33591), contained errors in

the regulatory text. A new NPRM is

published elsewhere in this same

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, Airspace

Docket No. 98–ASO–9, as published in

the Federal Register on June 19, 1998

(63 FR 33591), is hereby withdrawn.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 23,

1998.

Richard E. Biscomb,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 98–21079 Filed 8–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 37

[Docket No. RM98–3–000]

Open Access Same-Time Information

System

July 29, 1998.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission)

proposes to: amend its regulations to

extend the retention period and

availability of information on

curtailments and interruptions and

require this information to include other

uses of the congested path at the time

of such incidents; amend its regulations

to clarify that OASIS nodes must have

the capability to allow OASIS users to

make file transfers and automated

computer-to-computer file transfers and

queries; amend its regulations to clarify

that Responsible Parties are required to

provide access to their OASIS sites for

OASIS users making automated queries

or extensive requests for data; and add

a provision to its regulations that would

allow Responsible Parties, under certain

circumstances, to limit a user’s access to

the node if that user’s grossly inefficient

method of accessing an OASIS node or

obtaining information from the node

degrades the performance of the node.

DATES: Comments on the notice of

proposed rulemaking are due on or

before September 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: File comments on the notice

of proposed rulemaking with the Office

of the Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

Comments should reference Docket No.

RM98–3–000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marvin Rosenberg (Technical

Information), Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208–

1283

William C. Booth (Technical

Information), Office of Electric Power

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208–

0849

Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information),

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, (202) 208–0321

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

document during normal business hours

in the Public Reference Room at 888

First Street, N.E., Room 2A,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS) provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS can be accessed via

Internet through FERC’s Homepage

(http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the CIPS

Link or the Energy Information Online

icon. The full text of this document will

be available on CIPS in ASCII and

WordPerfect 6.1 format. CIPS is also

available through the Commission’s

electronic bulletin board service at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing 202–208–1397, if

dialing locally, or 1–800–856–3920, if

dialing long distance. To access CIPS,

set your communications software to

19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800,

2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no

parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. User

assistance is available at 202–208–2474

or by E-mail to

CipsMaster@FERC.fed.us.

This document is also available

through the Commission’s Records and

Information Management System

(RIMS), an electronic storage and

retrieval system of documents submitted

to and issued by the Commission after

November 16, 1981. Documents from

November 1995 to the present can be

viewed and printed. RIMS is available

in the Public Reference Room or

remotely via Internet through FERC’s

Homepage using the RIMS link or the

Energy Information Online icon. User

assistance is available at 202–208–2222,

or by E-mail to

RimsMaster@FERC.fed.us.

Finally, the complete text on diskette

in WordPerfect format may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation. La Dorn Systems

Corporation is located in the Public

Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission or FERC) is

proposing to issue a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes to: (1)

amend 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii) to extend

the retention period and availability of

information on curtailments and

interruptions and require this

information to include other uses of the

congested path at the time of such

incidents; (2) amend 18 CFR 37.6 to

clarify that OASIS nodes must have the

capability to allow OASIS users to make

file transfers and automated computerto-computer file transfers and queries;

(3) amend 18 CFR 37.5 to clarify that

Responsible Parties are required to

provide access to their OASIS sites for

OASIS users making automated queries

or extensive requests for data; and (4)

add 18 CFR 37.5(d) to allow Responsible

Parties, under certain circumstances, to

limit a user’s access to the node if that

user’s grossly inefficient method of

accessing an OASIS node or obtaining

information from the node degrades the

performance of the node.

Item 1 is designed to help the

Commission better monitor whether

curtailments and interruptions involve
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 42297

1Open Access Same-Time Information System

and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 (1996); order on reh’g, Order

No. 889–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,049 (1997);

and order on reh’g, Order No. 889–B, 81 FERC ¶

61,253 (1997).

2For the purposes of this discussion, by

‘‘Responsible Party’’, we also intend to include a

‘‘Transmission Provider’’ that operates its own

OASIS node. We note that in Order No. 889 we

stated that a Transmission Provider ultimately is

responsible for the acts or omissions conducting on

its behalf by a Responsible Party. See FERC Stats.

& Regs. ¶ 31,035 at 31,603–04. 3Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded

Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,

Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at

31,722 (1996); order on reh’g, Order No. 888-A,

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

Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997); and

order on reh’g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046

(1998).

4Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 at

31,603.

5Section 37.5(b)(2) of the OASIS regulations, 18

CFR 37.5(b)(2) (1998), also requires each

Responsible Party to operate its OASIS node in

compliance with the standardized procedures

specified in the OASIS Standards and

Communications Protocols document (referred to

herein as the ‘‘S&CP Document’’).

instances of undue discrimination.

Items 2 through 4 go together. In the

discussion below, we clarify that OASIS

nodes must have the capability to allow

OASIS users to make file transfers and

automated computer-to-computer file

transfers and queries, and that

legitimate users may not have their

access to the node restricted or cut off

based on their making automated

queries or extensive requests for data.

We also clarify that extensive requests

for data by legitimate users does not

constitute an ‘‘excessive use of

resources’’ eligible for unilateral

disconnection by a Responsible Party

under section 5.1(j) of the S&CP

Document. We nevertheless are also

proposing to revise 18 CFR 37.5(d) to

allow Responsible Parties, under certain

circumstances, to limit a user’s access to

the node if that user’s grossly inefficient

method of accessing an OASIS node or

obtaining information from the node

degrades the performance of the node.

Commission approval is needed for

disconnection under these

circumstances.

II. Discussion

A. Access To, and Retention Of,

Supporting Information on Curtailments

and Interruptions

The Commission’s regulations at 18

CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii) require that

Transmission Providers make available

supporting information about

curtailments and interruptions, for up to

60 days after the curtailment or

interruption, upon request by the

affected customers. Since Order No.

889 1 became effective, issues

concerning curtailments and

interruptions have been the subject of a

number of informal complaints to the

FERC Enforcement Hotline. The

Commission is concerned that the

current regulations do not allow the

Commission’s staff and the public

access to the supporting information

required under 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii) and

that the information is not retained long

enough. Lack of access to the supporting

information limits significantly the

Commission’s ability to audit the

circumstances under which a

curtailment or interruption occurs, as

well as the Commission’s ability to

identify compliance problems and

resolve complaints. Therefore, we

propose to make changes to our

regulations to require that Transmission

Providers retain supporting information

about curtailments and interruptions for

three years and make this information

available on request, not only to affected

customers, but also to the Commission’s

staff and the public.

Additionally, our review of this

regulation persuades us to propose one

additional change. In order to assess

properly whether a curtailment or

interruption has been imposed on an

unduly discriminatory basis, it would

be helpful to know whether the

curtailment or interruption was

imposed on other users of the congested

path. We, therefore, are proposing that

the information to be made available

upon request under 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii)

should include information on any

other uses of the congested path at the

time of the curtailment or interruption.

This information would be very

informative, and should not be

burdensome to assemble, because the

person(s) posting the notice of

curtailment or interruption under 18

CFR 37.6(e)(3)(i) should already have

this information at hand.

The Commission will provide

interested persons with an opportunity

to file comments on these proposed

changes within 45 days of the date of

publication of this NOPR in the Federal

Register. Parties filing comments should

address, among other issues: (1) whether

the information will increase market

participants’ knowledge of system

operations and thereby improve the

functioning of the electricity markets;

(2) whether the additional information

will help market participants detect

discrimination or other abusive

transmission practices and, when

necessary, enable them to file wellspecified, well-documented complaints

with the Commission (which will help

the Commission process complaints

more efficiently); and (3) whether the

need for this information outweighs its

commercial sensitivity.

B. File Transfers, Automated Queries,

and Extensive Requests for Data

1. Overview

The FERC Enforcement Hotline also

received calls showing that some

misunderstandings have arisen about

the use of file transfers and automated

queries. To correct these

misunderstandings, we propose to

revise 18 CFR 37.5 and 37.6 to clarify

that OASIS nodes must have the

capability to allow OASIS users to make

file transfers and automated computerto-computer file transfers and queries,

and that Responsible Parties are

required to provide OASIS users with

access for automated querying of the

system.2 This is true even when a large

volume of requests are made. We also

propose to add a provision, at 18 CFR

37.5(d), that would permit Responsible

Parties, under certain circumstances, to

restrict access to users whose grossly

inefficient use of the system is

degrading the performance of the node

and who are unwilling to use less

burdensome methods that would give

them the same information just as

quickly.

2. Background

In Order No. 888, the Commission

stated that:

in order to remedy undue discrimination in

the provision of transmission services it is

necessary to have non-discriminatory access

to transmission information * * * [3]

Likewise, in Order No. 889, we stated

that,

under 18 CFR 37.5, the OASIS must give

access to relevant standardized information

pertaining to the status of the transmission

system as well as to the types and prices of

services.[4]

Consistent with these findings, the

Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR

37.5(b) require each Responsible Party

to:

provide access to an OASIS providing

standardized information . . . pertaining to

the transmission system for which it is

responsible.[5]

In the period since Order Nos. 888

and 889 have become effective, some

OASIS providers have been limiting the

access of certain parties using

automated queries.

3. Discussion

Access to OASIS data by automated

query is an integral part of the

transmission data sharing we

envisioned and required in Order Nos.

888 and 889. As we observed in Order
42298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

6Order No. 889–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,049,

at 30,574.

7See, e.g., §§ 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1, and 4.4 of the S&CP

Document.

8The Commission also provided for computer-tocomputer communications related to natural gas

transportation information. In Order No. 587–B,

Standards for Business Practices of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,046

at 30,169 (1997), we explained that computer-tocomputer communications appear to be needed to

conduct natural gas transportation transactions.

9The excessive use of resources includes any

unauthorized use of an OASIS node. This

clarification is not intended to prevent a

Responsible Party from disconnecting any

unauthorized user, any user who circumvents

system security, any user who causes, or attempts

to cause, the node to cease functioning, or who

otherwise disrupts, or attempts to disrupt, the

normal functioning of the node.

10SLAs are also referenced in section 5.1(j) of the

S&CP Document, quoted in the text above.

11Commission approval would not be necessary

where the Transmission Provider is

nonjurisdictional and operates its OASIS node (or

assigns this to a Responsible Party) under Order No.

888’s reciprocity requirement.

12By ‘‘grossly inefficient’’, we intend to address

situations where a user fails to adopt more efficient

methods of accessing a node or obtaining

information in favor of very inefficient methods that

may needlessly degrade or damage the node. This

is consistent with § 3.6.a of the S&CP Document,

which states that a Responsible Party may restrict

its responses to overly broad queries that, if

answered expansively, would degrade the

performance of the node.

It would be impracticable to attempt to delineate

all instancs of ‘‘gross inefficiency’’ in advance.

Accordingly, questions as to whether a particular

user’s access or use of the node is ‘‘grossly

inefficient’’ will be resolved on a case-by-case basis

whn a Responsible Party seeks Commission

approval to restrict a user’s access to the node.

No. 889-A, uploading and downloading

are computer-to-computer transactions.6

In addition, computer-to-computer

queries are an integral part of OASIS as

specified in the S&CP Document.7

However, to avoid any possible contrary

interpretations, we propose to add

language to 18 CFR 37.5 and 18 CFR

37.6 making this point explicitly.8 These

proposals are consistent with the

current language in section 4.3.1 of the

S&CP Document (which specifies the

information requirements and templates

for uploading the information to, and

downloading it from, OASIS nodes) and

in section 37.5(b) of the Commission’s

regulations (which contemplates OASIS

access by computer-to-computer

queries). The proposals are intended to

make absolutely clear that each

Responsible Party must provide OASIS

users with non-discriminatory access

without curfews, restrictions, or

limitations of any kind, whether access

is sought by automated or graphical user

interface means.

This also is consistent with the

current language in section 5.1(j) of the

S&CP Document, which allows a

Responsible Party to disconnect or

restrict users in only very limited

circumstances. Section 5.1(j) of the

S&CP Document reads as follows:

Disconnection: [Transmission System

Information Providers] shall be allowed to

disconnect any User who is degrading the

performance of the OASIS Node through the

excessive use of resources, beyond what is

permitted in the Service Level Agreement.

This provision authorizes the

disconnection of a user only when the

user is degrading the performance of the

OASIS node, through excessive use

beyond what is allowed in the Service

Level Agreement (SLA). Thus, under

section 5.1(j), disconnection is only

authorized when: (1) the use exceeds

what is allowed in the SLA; and (2) the

excessive use is degrading the

performance of the OASIS node.9 Thus,

a particular user’s heavy use of an

OASIS node, even if it would require

the node to be upgraded, would not, by

itself, be a basis for disconnection.

The basic (default) SLA applicable to

all OASIS users allows large volume,

computer-to-computer usage of the

OASIS. Thus, Responsible Parties may

not use section 5.1(j) or, as explained

below, section 3.2 of the S&CP

Document to deny access to large

volume users of the OASIS.

Section 3.2 of the S&CP Document

authorizes Responsible Parties to enter

into SLAs.10 Section 3.2 reads as

follows:

Service Level Agreements: It is recognized

that Users will have different requirements

for frequency of access, performance, etc.,

based on their unique business needs. To

accommodate these differing requirements,

[Transmission System Information Providers]

shall be required to establish [an SLA] with

each User which specifies the terms and

conditions for access to the information

posted by the Providers. The default [SLA]

shall be Internet access with the OASIS Node

meeting all minimum performance

requirements.

Section 3.2 of the S&CP Document

directs Responsible Parties to establish

an SLA with each user, specifying the

terms and conditions for access to the

information posted on the OASIS. The

service to be provided under these SLAs

is to meet all minimum performance

requirements (i.e., the requirements of

Order No. 889, the Commission’s

regulations, and the S&CP Document).

Although not explicitly stated in

section 3.2 of the S&CP Document, our

proposal clarifies that when a user

registers on an OASIS node to receive

basic OASIS service, this registration, by

default, constitutes a basic SLA

(including computer-to-computer access

as discussed above). A negotiated SLA,

approved by the Commission, may be

necessary to define value added services

beyond those provided by the

Commission’s regulations and the S&CP

document.11 However, a negotiated SLA

is neither necessary nor appropriate as

a condition for a user to receive basic

service.

Thus, under both sections 5.1(j) and

3.2 of the S&CP Document, if a

legitimate user’s usage creates a problem

regarding the system’s capabilities, the

problem may not be ‘‘corrected’’ by

disconnecting the user or by limiting

that user’s use of the system. To avoid

any contrary interpretation, we are

proposing revisions to 18 CFR 37.5 and

37.6 to make this explicit.

Consistent with this proposal, it

follows that large volume usage and

automated computer-to-computer file

transfers and queries do not constitute

the kind of ‘‘excessive use of resources’’

eligible for unilateral disconnection by

the Responsible Party under section

5.1(j) of the S&CP Document. We are

concerned, nevertheless, that a user’s

grossly inefficient access and use of the

system may degrade the performance of

the OASIS node. We, therefore, are

proposing to revise 18 CFR § 37.5(d) to

allow Responsible Parties that are

public utilities to seek Commission

approval to limit a user’s access to the

node if that user’s grossly inefficient

method of accessing an OASIS node or

obtaining information from the node

degrades the performance of the node.12

For example, a user may seek data in a

resource-intensive wasteful way even

though the same data could be obtained

as quickly in a far less resourceconsuming manner. It also would be

grossly inefficient for a customer to seek

updates more frequently than

information is updated. In such a

circumstance, an OASIS provider

should instruct the user on how to

obtain the information in a less

resource-intensive way, and may seek

Commission approval to limit access to

that user if the OASIS provider can

show that: (1) the means of access is

grossly inefficient; (2) the node is

sufficiently sized to accommodate usage

that is not grossly inefficient; and (3) the

user was unresponsive to the OASIS

provider’s attempts to resolve the matter

informally.

We earlier stated that large volume

usage and automated computer-tocomputer file transfers and queries do

not constitute the kind of ‘‘excessive use

of resources’’ eligible for unilateral

disconnection by the Responsible Party

under section 5.1(j) of the S&CP

Document. This being the case, we

believe we need to establish a

mechanism to govern those situations.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules 42299

13 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612.

14See Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. at

31,628.

15Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 at

31,587–88, Order No. 889–A, FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 31,049 at 30,549–50, Order No. 889–B, 81 FERC

¶ 61,253 at 62,171.

16OMB Control No. 1902–0173.

We, therefore, are proposing (as

discussed above) to revise 18 CFR

37.5(d) to allow Responsible Parties to

limit a user’s access to the node, with

the approval of the Commission, if that

user’s grossly inefficient method of

accessing an OASIS node or obtaining

information from the node degrades the

performance of the node.

We are proposing that the

Commission’s approval be needed for

disconnection under these

circumstances because we: (1) want to

avoid unwarranted disconnections or

limitations on access; (2) seek to

encourage Responsible Parties and

OASIS users to resolve these disputes

informally, if possible; (3) wish to

assure OASIS users that they will not be

disconnected without good cause; and

(4) hope that, merely by making these

clarifications, we will avert or minimize

instances of grossly inefficient usage

degrading the performance of a node.

Comments by interested persons

should address the advantages and

disadvantages of the Commission’s

proposal on the foregoing issue,

including the requirement for prior

Commission approval of

disconnections. Commenters may

suggest alternative procedures, with or

without prior Commission approval of

disconnections, and should explain the

relative advantages and disadvantages of

their proposals. For example, if an

OASIS node is not meeting legitimate

customer needs, should Responsible

Parties be required to increase the

capacity of the node, including adopting

the best available technology, and,

having done so, then be allowed to

disconnect grossly inefficient users

without prior Commission approval?

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)13 requires any proposed or final

rule issued by the Commission to

contain a description and analysis of the

impact that the proposed or final rule

would have on small entities or to

contain a certification that the rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Order No. 889

contained a certification under § 605(b)

of the RFA that the OASIS Final Rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on small entities within the

meaning of the RFA.14

As discussed above, this proposal

would make three minor revisions to 18

CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii). Given that we do not

expect these minor revisions to have

any economic impact and given that we

have granted waivers from the

requirements of the OASIS Final Rule to

small entities where appropriate, and

will continue to do so, we hereby certify

that the proposed changes in 18 CFR

Part 37 would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities and that no

regulatory flexibility analysis is required

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 603. In addition,

we have proposed revisions to 18 CFR

37.5 and 37.6 that would clarify that a

Responsible Party may not deny or

restrict access to an OASIS user merely

because that user is a large volume,

computer-to-computer user of the

system. For the reasons cited above, and

in Order No. 889, these clarifications

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

IV. Environmental Statement

As explained in Order Nos. 888–A

and 889–A, Order Nos. 888 and 889

were the joint subjects of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement issued

in Docket Nos. RM95–8–000 and RM94–

7–001 on April 12, 1996. Given that this

proposal makes only minor changes in

the regulations, none of which would

have any environmental impact, no

separate environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement is

being prepared for this proposed rule.

V. Public Reporting Burden

As discussed previously, this NOPR

proposes three minor revisions to 18

CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii). First, given that

information on other uses of congested

paths already would be known and

available to the person(s) reporting a

curtailment/interruption incident, we

believe that the proposed requirement to

make this information available would

have only a minimal, inconsequential

impact on the reporting burden under

18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii) and that the

changes do not substantially or

materially modify the collection of

information previously approved by

OMB. Second, we do not believe that

extending the retention period or

extending the category of persons who

may request the information will

measurably increase the public

reporting burden. Third, the NOPR does

not add any additional reporting

requirements under 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(i)

or require information to be made

available under 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii)

about any events or incidents not

already covered under the existing

regulation.

Nor do we believe our proposal to

amend 18 CFR 37.5 and 37.6 to clarify

the required minimum access that

Responsible Parties must provide to

OASIS users, or to allow (under certain

circumstances) limitations on access by

grossly inefficient users, will increase

the public reporting burden.

Consequently, the public reporting

burden associated with issuance of this

NOPR is unchanged from our estimation

in Order Nos. 889, 889–A, and 889–B.

15 The Commission has conducted an

internal review of this conclusion and

thereby has assured itself that there is

specific, objective support for this

information burden estimate. Moreover,

the Commission has reviewed the

collection of information required by

Order Nos. 889, 889–A, and 889–B, and

has determined that the collection of

information is necessary and conforms

to the Commission’s plan, as described

in those prior orders, for the collection,

efficient management, and use of the

required information.

VI. Information Collection Statement

As explained in Order Nos. 889–A

and 889–B, Order No. 889 contained an

information collection statement for

which the Commission obtained

approval from the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB).16 Given that the

proposed changes on curtailments and

interruptions make only minor revisions

to the regulation, only one of which

would have any possible impact on the

previously approved information

collection statement (the addition of

other uses of the congested path to the

information already required to be

collected), and given that we expect that

this information would already be

known to the person assembling

information about the curtailment or

interruption, we do not believe that

these proposed changes would require

any revision to the information

collection statement approved by OMB

for Order No. 889. Nor do we believe

that our proposed revisions to 18 CFR

37.5 and 37.6, to clarify the required

minimum access Responsible Parties

must provide to OASIS users, or to

allow (under certain circumstances)

limitations on access by grossly

inefficient users, would require any

revision to the information collection

statement approved by OMB for Order

No. 889. Accordingly, we conclude that

OMB approval for this NOPR will not be

necessary. However, the Commission

will send a copy of this NOPR to OMB,

for informational purposes only.

Interested persons may obtain

information on the reporting
42300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Proposed Rules

requirements and associated burden

estimates by contacting the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office

of the Chief Information Officer, (202)

208–1415], and the Office of

Management and Budget [Attention:

Desk Officer for the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (202) 395–3087

(telephone), 202–395–7285 (facsimile)].

In addition, interested persons may file

written comments on the collections of

information required by this NOPR and

associated burden estimates by sending

written comments to the Desk Officer

for FERC at: Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10202 NEOB,

Washington, D.C. 20503, within 30 days

of publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Three copies of any

comments filed with the Office of

Management and Budget also should be

sent to the following address: Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Room 1A, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

VII. Public Comment Procedure

Prior to taking final action on this

proposed rulemaking, we are inviting

written comments from interested

persons. All comments in response to

this notice should be submitted to the

Office of Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426,

and should refer to Docket No. RM98–

3–000. An original and fourteen (14)

copies of such comments should be

filed with the Commission on or before

September 21, 1998. Additionally, a

copy of the comments also should be

submitted to the Commission on

computer diskette in WordPerfect 6.1 or

ASCII format.

All written submissions to this NOPR

will be placed in the public file and will

be available for public inspection in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, during regular business hours.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37

Electric utilities.

By direction of the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission proposes to amend Part 37

in Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 37—OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR

PUBLIC UTILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 37

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791–825r, 2601–2645;

31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.

2. Section 37.5 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph

(e), and by adding paragraphs (c) and

(d), to read as follows:

§ 37.5 Obligations of Transmission

Providers and Responsible Parties.

* * * * *

(c) A Responsible Party may not deny

or restrict access to an OASIS user

merely because that user makes

automated computer-to-computer file

transfers or queries, or extensive

requests for data.

(d) In the event that an OASIS user’s

grossly inefficient method of accessing

an OASIS node or obtaining information

from the node degrades the performance

of the node, the Responsible Party

should instruct the user on how to

obtain the information in a less

resource-intensive manner, and may

seek Commission approval to limit that

user’s OASIS access if the matter cannot

be resolved informally.

* * * * *

3. Section 37.6 is amended by revising

paragraphs (a) intoductory text, (a)(4),

(a)(5), and (e)(3)(ii), and by adding

paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

§ 37.6 Information to be posted on an

OASIS.

(a) The information posted on the

OASIS must be in such detail and the

OASIS must have such capabilities as to

allow Transmission Customers to:

* * * * *

(4) Clearly identify the degree to

which their transmission service

requests or schedules were denied or

interrupted;

(5) Obtain access, in electronic format,

to information to support available

transmission capability calculations and

historical transmission service requests

and schedules for various audit

purposes; and

(6) Make file transfers and automated

computer-to-computer file transfers and

queries.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Information to support any such

curtailment or interruption, including

the operating status of the facilities

involved in the constraint or

interruption and any other uses of the

congested path at the time of the

curtailment or interruption, must be

maintained for three years and

provided, upon request, to the curtailed

or interrupted customer, the

Commission’s Staff, and any other

person who requests it.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–21016 Filed 8–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 806

[Docket No. 98N–0439]

Medical Devices; Reports of

Corrections and Removals;

Companion to Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is proposing to

amend its regulations governing reports

of corrections and removals of medical

devices to eliminate the requirement for

distributors to make such reports. This

proposed rule is a companion document

to the direct final rule published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register. The amendments are being

made to implement provisions of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(the act), as amended by the Food and

Drug Administration Modernization Act

of 1997 (FDAMA). This companion

proposed rule is issued under FDAMA

and the act as amended.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 21, 1998. Comments

on the information collection

requirements must be received on or

before October 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

on the companion proposed rule to the

Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,

MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa

M. Gilmore, Center for Devices and

Radiological Health (HFZ–215), Food

and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard

Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–

2970.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Rulemaking Action

This proposed rule is a companion to

the direct final rule published in the