31728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

235 Id. P 361 (citing comments in support of a 

three-year implementation schedule). 

236 Id. P 361 (citing EEI Comments at 18; NRECA/ 

LPPC Comments at 28–29; MISO Transmission 

Owners Comments at 22–23; SCE Comments at 2; 

SDG&E Comments at 1–2; APS Comments at 10; 

WFEC Comments at 1; Southern Company 

Comments at 6–7; ITC Comments at 5; LADWP 

Comments at 8–9). 

237 Id. PP 293, 296. 

238 Id. P 59 (citing BPA Comments at 3–4; 

PacifiCorp Comments at 2; Imperial Irrigation 

District Comments at 5–6; EEI Comments at 10–11; 

CAISO Comments at 10). 

239 Id. P 305. 

240ATC Request for Clarification at 1. 

241Order No. 881, 177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at P 12. 

242 Id. P 363; see 18 CFR 35.28(c)(1)(vi). 

243Order No. 881, 177 FERC ¶ 61,179 at 363. 

244 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

transmission lines.235 Potomac 

Economics addresses neither these 

operational and software concerns, nor 

the level of support for the three-year 

implementation schedule. 

100. With regard to Potomac 

Economics’ argument that the 

Commission should require 

implementation of fixed emergency 

ratings as soon as practicable, we find 

that the three-year implementation 

schedule is consistent with the 

implementation schedule most 

commonly suggested by transmission 

owners for AAR implementation on 

priority transmission lines,236 and both 

the Commission and commenters 

explained that the availability of 

emergency ratings will need to be 

factored into ATC calculations.237

Potomac Economics has not 

demonstrated that the implementation 

of emergency ratings on a faster timeline 

is feasible, particularly in the non-RTO/ 

ISO regions and particularly in light of 

the challenges associated with updating 

ATC calculations articulated by 

commenters.238 Moreover, as a matter of 

policy, there are administrative 

efficiencies to requiring implementation 

of all the requirements adopted in Order 

No. 881 on the same timeline. 

Specifically, by maintaining a single 

implementation timeline, the 

implementation burdens are lessened in 

that all transmission line rating 

recalculations must only be done once. 

In contrast, Potomac Economics’ 

suggestion would require the 

calculation of seasonal emergency 

ratings followed by a separate 

calculation of emergency ratings to 

comply with the AAR requirements for 

the same transmission line. Thus, 

requiring implementation of all the 

requirements adopted in Order No. 881 

on the same timeline is appropriate 

given the interrelationship between the 

AAR requirements, the emergency 

ratings requirements, and the 

requirement that AARs also be 

calculated for ‘‘uniquely determined 

emergency ratings.’’ 239 Therefore, as 

explained above, we sustain the 

findings in the final rule that justify a 

three-year implementation timeline for 

the other requirements of Order No. 881 

and believe it appropriate to include the 

emergency ratings requirements in the 

same timeline. 

E. Other Issues 

101. ATC requests clarification that its 

current seasonal line ratings 

methodology meets the intent of Order 

No. 881 by providing what it 

characterizes as ‘‘four seasons of 

accurate, science-based weather 

parameters’’ and that its current AAR 

approach satisfies the requirements of 

Order No. 881.240

102. In response to ATC’s request for 

clarification, we find that the 

appropriate proceeding for the 

Commission to make such a 

determination is through transmission 

providers’ Order No. 881 compliance 

filings. As explained in Order No. 881, 

each transmission provider must submit 

a compliance filing within 120 days of 

the effective date of the final rule 

revising their OATT to incorporate pro 

forma OATT Attachment M.241 The 

Commission acknowledged that ‘‘some 

public utility transmission providers 

may have provisions in their existing 

pro forma OATTs or other document(s) 

subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction 

that the Commission has deemed to be 

consistent with or superior to the pro 

forma OATT.’’ 242 Where Order No. 881 

modifies these provisions, 

‘‘transmission providers must either 

comply with the requirements adopted 

in this final rule or demonstrate that 

these previously approved variations 

continue to be consistent with or 

superior to the pro forma OATT, as 

modified by this final rule.’’ 243 The 

compliance filing required by Order No. 

881 is the proper vehicle for presenting 

this evidence to the Commission. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

103. The burden estimates have not 

changed from the final rule. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

104. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 244 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Pursuant to section 605(b) of 

the RFA, we still conclude that the final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

V. Document Availability 

105. 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 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First 

Street NE, Room 2A, Washington DC 

20426. 

106. 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. 

107. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s website 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. 

VI. Effective Date 

108. The effective date of the 

document published on January 13, 

2022 (87 FR 2244), is confirmed: March 

14, 2022. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: May 19, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11233 Filed 5–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 375 

[Docket No. RM22–15–000; Order No. 883] 

Certification of Uncontested 

Settlements by Settlement Judges 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

revising its delegation of authority 

regulations to authorize the Chief 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31729 

1E.g., Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 97 FERC ¶ 61,315, at 

62,449 (2001) (‘‘it has been Commission policy to 

promote voluntary settlements as an important tool 

in the administration of our jurisdictional 

responsibilities’’); Tex. Gas Transmission Corp., 28 

FERC ¶ 61,372, at 61,665–66 (1984) (encouraging 

settlements, as they can play an important part in 

resolving issues without prolonged and contentious 

litigation); cf. Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. FPC, 

306 F.2d 345, 347–48 (5th Cir. 1962) (‘‘For 

Commission approved voluntary settlements are an 

important and desirable mechanism as the 

Commission undertakes the staggering burden of 

dealing with the ceaseless flow of the ever-more 

complicated problems. . . . Consequently 

settlements should be encouraged, not 

discouraged.’’ (footnotes omitted)). 

2 18 CFR 385.603 (2021). 

3Compare 18 CFR 385.603 with 18 CFR 385.602 

(2021). The Rules of Practice and Procedure 

authorize ‘‘presiding officers’’ to certify uncontested 

settlements, see 18 CFR 385.602(g)(1), and presiding 

officers are defined to include the Commissioner or 

administrative law judge designated to preside at 

the hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, or 

with respect to proceedings not set for trial-type 

hearing the Commission employee designated to 

conduct such proceeding. 18 CFR 385.102(e) (2021). 

Settlement judges are not mentioned. The 

Commission’s delegation of authority regulations 

similarly do not expressly authorize settlement 

judges to certify uncontested settlements. 18 CFR 

375.304 (2021). 

4Cities of Anaheim v. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator 

Corp., 101 FERC ¶ 61,392 (2002). 

5 Id. P 12 & n.8. 

6 5 CFR 1320.13 (2021). 

7Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Envt’l Pol’y Act, 

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 

FERC ¶ 61,284). 

8 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2021). 

9 5 U.S.C. 601–12. 

Administrative Law Judge and the 

Administrative Law Judge designated by 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge to 

serve as a settlement judge for a 

proceeding to certify to the Commission 

uncontested offers of settlement. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 24, 

2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lawrence R. Greenfield, Ofice of the 

General Counsel, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6415, lawrence.greenfield@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In this 

instant final rule, the Commission 

codifies its precedent, revising its 

delegation of authority regulations to 

authorize the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge and the Administrative Law Judge 

designated by the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge to serve as a settlement judge 

(collectively, ‘‘settlement judge’’) for a 

proceeding to certify to the Commission 

uncontested offers of settlement. 

I. Discussion 

2. The Commission has long 

recognized the importance of 

settlements among the participants to 

litigated proceedings as a tool to 

efficiently and expeditiously resolve 

those contested proceedings set for trialtype evidentiary hearing, as well as 

other contested proceedings.1

Settlement judges are particularly 

crucial to helping participants resolve 

such proceedings. The Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure have 

thus long provided for the appointment 

of settlement judges by the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge.2 While the 

settlement judge is authorized to 

convene and preside over conferences 

and negotiations by the participants to 

a proceeding, and then to assess the 

practicalities of potential settlement, 

and then to report to the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge or the 

Commission, as appropriate, 

recommending continuation or 

termination of settlement negotiations, 

the Commission’s regulations do not 

expressly authorize the settlement judge 

to certify uncontested settlements to the 

Commission.3

3. Recognizing that the Commission’s 

regulations did not expressly authorize 

settlement judges to certify uncontested 

settlements to the Commission, in 2002 

the Commission sought to clarify this 

matter (and others not relevant here).4

The Commission noted that, in fact, at 

that time settlement judges were already 

typically certifying uncontested 

settlements, and the Commission went 

on to conclude that settlement judges’ 

doing so was ‘‘appropriate and not 

inconsistent with [the] regulations.’’ 5

That is, the Commission expressly 

authorized settlement judges henceforth 

to do what they had been doing 

previously without express 

authorization, i.e., certify uncontested 

settlements. The Commission had not 

changed its delegation of authority 

regulations, however. We now do so, 

and we in this document codify in our 

delegation of authority regulations 

express authorization for settlement 

judges to certify uncontested 

settlements. 

II. Information Collection Statement 

4. The Office of Management Budget’s 

regulations require approval of certain 

information collection requirements 

imposed by agency rules.6 This final 

rule, however, results in no new, 

additional, or different reporting 

burdens. This final rule does not require 

public utilities or natural gas 

companies, or indeed any participant in 

a Commission proceeding, to file new, 

additional, or different information, and 

it does not change the frequency with 

which they must file information. 

III. Environmental Analysis 

5. The Commission is required to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

for any action that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the human 

environment.7 Issuance of this final rule 

does not represent a major Federal 

action having a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment under the 

Commission’s regulations implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969. Part 380 of the Commission’s 

regulations lists exemptions to the 

requirement to draft an Environmental 

Analysis or Environmental Impact 

Statement. Included is an exemption for 

rules that are clarifying, corrective, or 

procedural or that do not substantially 

change the effect of the regulations 

being amended.8 This final rule, 

codifying the ability of settlement 

judges to certify uncontested 

settlements, is clarifying and procedural 

and thus is exempt under that 

provision. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 9 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This final rule changes the 

Commission’s delegations of authority 

to authorize settlement judges to certify 

uncontested settlements and does not 

create any additional requirements for 

participants. Indeed, by expressly 

delegating such authority, the 

Commission provides clarity concerning 

settlement judges’ authority to certify 

participants’ uncontested settlements, 

and that will benefit the participants in 

Commission proceedings. The 

Commission thus certifies that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact upon participants in 

Commission proceedings. An analysis 

under the RFA is therefore not required. 

V. Document Availability 

7. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http:// 

www.ferc.gov). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room due to the President’s March 13, 

2020 proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19). 

8. From the Commission’s Home Page 

on the internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31730 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

10 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). 

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. 

9. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

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. 

VI. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

10. These regulations are effective 

June 24, 2022. The Commission is 

issuing this rule as a final rule without 

a period for public comment. Under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), notice and comment 

procedures are unnecessary for ‘‘rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice.’’ This rule is such a rule, and, 

by codifying in the regulations the 

delegation of authority to settlement 

judges to certify uncontested 

settlements to the Commission, this rule 

is directed at improving the efficient 

and effective operations of the 

Commission, not toward a 

determination of the rights, interests, or 

obligations of any affected participants. 

Notice and comment procedures are 

thus not required. 

11. The Congressional Review Act 

provides for Congressional notification 

of certain rules, but essentially exempts 

‘‘any rule of agency organization, 

procedure, or practice that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties.’’ 10

This rule is such a rule, and, by 

codifying in the regulations the 

delegation of authority to settlement 

judges to certify uncontested 

settlements to the Commission, this rule 

is directed at improving the efficient 

and effective operations of the 

Commission, not toward a 

determination of the rights, interests, or 

obligations of any affected participants. 

Congressional notification is thus not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 375 

Authority delegations. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: May 19, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission amends part 375, chapter I, 

title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 375—THE COMMISSION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 375 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551–557; 15 U.S.C. 

717–717w, 3301–3432; 16 U.S.C. 791–825r, 

2601–2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352. 

■ 2. In § 375.304, paragraph (c) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 375.304 Delegations to the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge. 

* * * * * 

(c) The Commission authorizes the 

Chief Administrative Law Judge, and 

the Administrative Law Judge 

designated by the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge to serve as a settlement judge 

for a proceeding, to certify to the 

Commission uncontested offers of 

settlement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11242 Filed 5–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0339] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; Escape 

From Alcatraz Triathlon, San Francisco 

Bay, San Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary local 

regulation for the navigable waters on 

the San Francisco Bay. The special local 

regulation is needed to protect 

personnel, vessels, and the marine 

environment from potential hazards 

created by the Escape from Alcatraz 

Triathlon marine event. This special 

local regulation will temporarily 

prohibit persons and vessels from 

entering, transiting through, anchoring 

in, or remaining within the regulated 

area unless authorized by the Captain of 

the Port San Francisco or a designated 

representative. This regulation is 

necessary to provide safety of life on the 

navigable waters during the event, 

which will be held on June 5, 2022. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 5, 

2022, from 6:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https:// 

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2022– 

0339 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email MST1 Shannon Curtaz-Milian, 

U.S. Coast Guard District 11, Sector San 

Francisco, at 415–399–3585, 

SFWaterways@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because we 

must establish this regulation by June 5, 

2022, and lack sufficient time to provide 

a reasonable comment period and then 

consider those comments before issuing 

this rule. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule would be contrary to public 

interest because immediate action is 

needed to ensure the safety of the 

participants and vessels during the 

Escape from Alcatraz Triathlon on June 

5, 2022. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 

(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The 

Captain of the Port Sector San Francisco 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1