24828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1FERC Staff, Staff Findings on Capacity 

Reassignment (2010), available at: http:// 

www.ferc.gov (Staff Report). 

2Promoting 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, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036, at 31,696 (1996), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 888–A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 

1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), order 

on reh’g, Order No. 888–B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 

(1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–C, 82 FERC 

¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in relevant part sub nom. 

Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 

225 F.3d 667 (DC Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New 

York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 

thereafter at intervals not exceeding 11,700 

FC of disk life, inspect the LP turbine disks 

stage 2 and stage 3 for corrosion using RRD 

Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. TAY–72– 

A1524, Revision 3, dated March 24, 2010. 

(2) For engines with disk life that already 

exceed 11,700 FC on the effective date of this 

AD, perform the inspection within 90 days 

after the effective date of this AD. 

(3) When, during any of the inspections as 

required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of 

this AD, corrosion is found, replace the 

affected parts. RRD TAY 650 Engine 

Manual—E–TAY–3RR, Tasks 72–52–23–200– 

000 and 72–52–24–200–000, and RRD TAY 

651 Engine Manual—E–TAY–5RR, Tasks 72– 

52–23–200–000 and 72–52–24–200–000, 

contain guidance on performing the 

inspection for corrosion and rejection 

criteria. 

Previous Credit 

(f) Initial inspections done before the 

effective date of this AD on LP turbine disks 

stage 2 and stage 3 listed in Table 1 and 

Table 2 of this AD using RRD ASB No. TAY– 

72–A1524, Revision 1, dated September 1, 

2006, or Revision 2, dated June 13, 2008, 

comply with the initial inspection 

requirements specified in this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to EASA AD 2010–060R1, dated 

April 14, 2010, for related information. 

Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co 

KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlwitz, 15827 

Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 011 

49 (0) 33–7086–1883; fax: 011 49 (0) 33– 

7086–3276, for a copy of the service 

information referenced in this AD. 

(i) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: tara.chaidez@faa.gov; phone: 

(781) 238–7773; fax (781) 238–7199, for more 

information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

April 29, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10739 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 37 

[Docket No. RM10–22–000] 

Promoting a Competitive Market for 

Capacity Reassignments 

April 29, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Based on the Commission’s 

experience to date and a two-year study, 

released April 15, 2010, the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

proposes in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to lift the price cap for all 

transmission customers reassigning 

transmission capacity beyond October 1, 

2010. The reforms proposed in this 

order are intended to facilitate the 

development of a market for capacity 

reassignments as a competitive 

alternative to primary capacity. 

DATES: Comments are due July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number 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. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, 

NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

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: 

Laurel Hyde (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Market Regulation, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8146, 

A. Cory Lankford (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Based on the Commission’s 

experience to date and a two-year study, 

released April 15, 2010,1 the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) proposes in this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to lift the 

price cap for all transmission customers 

reassigning transmission capacity 

beyond October 1, 2010. The reforms 

proposed in this order are intended to 

facilitate the development of a market 

for capacity reassignments as a 

competitive alternative to primary 

capacity. 

I. Background 

2. In Order No. 888, the Commission 

concluded that a transmission 

provider’s pro forma Open Access 

Transmission Tariff (OATT) must 

explicitly permit the voluntary 

reassignment of all or part of a holder’s 

firm point-to-point capacity rights to 

any eligible customer.2 The Commission 

also found that allowing holders of firm 

transmission capacity rights to reassign 

capacity would help parties manage the 

financial risks associated with their 

long-term commitment, reduce the 

market power of transmission providers 

by enabling customers to compete, and 

foster efficient capacity allocation. 

3. With respect to the appropriate rate 

for capacity reassignment, the 

Commission concluded it could not 

permit reassignments at market-based 

rates because it was unable to determine 

that the market for reassigned capacity 

was sufficiently competitive so that 

assignors would not be able to exert 

market power. Instead, the Commission 

capped the rate at the highest of (1) the 

original transmission rate charged to the 

purchaser (assignor), (2) the 

transmission provider’s maximum 

stated firm transmission rate in effect at 

the time of the reassignment, or (3) the 

assignor’s own opportunity costs 

capped at the cost of expansion (price 

cap). The Commission further explained 

that opportunity cost pricing had been 

permitted at ‘‘the higher of embedded 

costs or legitimate and verifiable 

opportunity costs, but not the sum of 

the two (i.e., ‘or’ pricing is permitted; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24829 

3Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 

31,740. 

4Order No. 888–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 

at 30,224. 

5Preventing Undue Discrimination and 

Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 

72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,241, at P 808 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

890–A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008), FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 890–C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009), order 

on reh’g, Order No. 890–D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 

(2009). 

6Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at 

P 808. 

7 Id. P 815. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. P 816. 

10 Id. P 817. 

11 Id. P 820. 

12 Id. 

13Order No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 

at P 388, 390. 

14 Id. P 390. 

15Order No. 890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 at P 78. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. P 79. 

18 Id. P 83. 

19 Id. P 84. 

20 Id. 

‘and’ pricing is not).’’ 3 In Order No. 

888–A, the Commission explained that 

opportunity costs for capacity 

reassigned by a customer should be 

measured in a manner analogous to that 

used to measure the transmission 

provider’s opportunity cost.4

4. To foster the development of a 

more robust secondary market for 

transmission capacity, the Commission, 

in Order No. 890, concluded that it was 

appropriate to lift the price cap for all 

transmission customers reassigning 

transmission capacity.5 The 

Commission stated that this would 

allow capacity to be allocated to those 

entities that value it most, thereby 

sending more accurate price signals to 

identify the appropriate location for 

construction of new transmission 

facilities to reduce congestion.6 The 

Commission also found that market 

forces, combined with the requirements 

of the pro forma OATT as modified in 

Order No. 890, would limit the ability 

of assignors to exert market power, 

including affiliates of the transmission 

provider. 

5. To enhance oversight and 

monitoring activities, the Commission 

adopted reforms to the underlying rules 

governing capacity reassignments.7

First, the Commission required that all 

sales or assignments of capacity be 

conducted through or otherwise posted 

on the transmission provider’s OASIS 

on or before the date the reassigned 

service commences.8 Second, the 

Commission required that assignees of 

transmission capacity execute a service 

agreement prior to the date on which 

the reassigned service commences.9

Third, in addition to existing OASIS 

posting requirements, the Commission 

required transmission providers to 

aggregate and summarize in an electric 

quarterly report the data contained in 

these service agreements.10

6. The Commission also directed staff 

to closely monitor the reassignmentrelated data submitted by transmission 

providers in their quarterly reports to 

identify any problems in the 

development of the secondary market 

for transmission capacity and, in 

particular, the potential exercise of 

market power.11 Thus, the Commission 

directed staff to prepare, within six 

months of receipt of two years of 

quarterly reports, a report summarizing 

its findings.12 In addition, the 

Commission encouraged market 

participants to provide feedback 

regarding the development of the 

secondary capacity market and, in 

particular, to contact the Commission’s 

Enforcement Hotline if concerns arise. 

7. In Order No. 890–A, the 

Commission affirmed its decision to 

remove the price cap on reassignments 

of transmission capacity but granted 

rehearing to limit the period during 

which reassignments may occur above 

the cap.13 The Commission concluded 

that it would be most appropriate to lift 

the price cap on reassignments of 

capacity only to accommodate the 

Commission staff study period. 

Accordingly, the Commission amended 

section 23.1 of the pro forma OATT to 

reinstate the price cap as of October 1, 

2010.14 The Commission stated that, 

upon review of the staff report and any 

feedback from the industry, the 

Commission would determine whether 

it would be appropriate to continue to 

allow reassignments of capacity above 

the price cap beyond that date. 

8. The Commission also clarified that, 

as of the effective date of the reforms 

adopted in Order No. 890, all 

reassignments of capacity must take 

place under the terms and conditions of 

the transmission provider’s OATT. As a 

result, there was no longer a need for 

the assigning party to have on file with 

the Commission a rate schedule 

governing reassigned capacity. To the 

extent that a reseller has a market-based 

rate tariff on file, the provisions of that 

tariff, including a price cap or reporting 

obligations, will not apply to the 

reassignment since such transactions no 

longer take place pursuant to the 

authorization of that tariff. 

9. In Order No. 890–B, the 

Commission clarified that the pro forma 

OATT does not, and will not, permit the 

withholding of transmission capacity by 

the transmission provider and that it 

effectively establishes a price ceiling for 

long-term reassignments at the 

transmission provider’s cost of 

expanding its system.15 The 

Commission further found that the fact 

that a transmission provider’s affiliate 

may profit from congestion on the 

system does not relieve the transmission 

provider of its obligation to offer all 

available transmission capacity and 

expand its system as necessary to 

accommodate requests for service.16 The 

Commission pointed out that customers 

that do not wish to participate in the 

secondary market may continue to take 

service from the transmission provider 

directly, just as if the price cap had not 

been lifted.17

10. With regard to the report to be 

prepared by Commission staff, the 

Commission clarified that staff should 

focus on the competitive effects of 

removing the price cap for reassigned 

capacity.18 The Commission stated that 

staff should consider the number of 

reassignments occurring over the study 

period, the magnitude and variability of 

resale prices, the term of the 

reassignments, and any relationship 

between resale prices and price 

differentials in related energy markets. 

In addition, the Commission directed 

staff to examine the nature and scope of 

reassignments undertaken by the 

transmission provider’s affiliates and 

include in its report any evidence of 

abuse in the secondary market for 

transmission capacity, whether by those 

affiliates or other customers. 

11. The Commission also granted 

rehearing and directed transmission 

providers to include in their electric 

quarterly reports the identity of the 

reseller and indicate whether the 

reseller is affiliated with the 

transmission provider.19 The 

Commission also directed each 

transmission provider to include in 

their electric quarterly reports the rate 

that would have been charged under its 

OATT had the secondary customer 

purchased primary service from the 

transmission provider for the term of the 

reassignment.20 The Commission 

directed transmission providers to 

submit this additional data for all 

resales during the study period and to 

update, as necessary, any previouslyfiled electric quarterly reports on or 

before the date they submitted their next 

electric quarterly reports. 

II. Discussion 

12. Based on the Commission’s 

experience and the two-year study, the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

21Secondary firm priority means that the shipper 

has scheduling rights to a new point that are 

superior to interruptible service but inferior to 

primary firm service for shippers using points 

specified in their contract. The use of secondary 

firm service enables shippers obtaining reassigned 

capacity to establish alternate firm capacity points. 

See Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to 

Regulations Governing Self-Implementing 

Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas 

Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Order 

No. 636, 57 FR 13,267 (Apr. 16, 1992), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 30,939, at 30,428 (1992), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 636–A, 57 FR 36,128 (Aug. 12, 1992), 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,950 (1992), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 636–B, 57 FR 57,911 (Dec. 8, 1992), 61 

FERC ¶ 61,272 (1992), order on reh’g, 62 FERC ¶ 

61,007 (1993), aff’d in part and remanded in part 

sub nom. United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 

1105 (DC Cir. 1996), order on remand, Order No. 

636–C, 62 FR 10,204 (Mar. 6, 1997), 78 FERC ¶ 

61,186 (1997); see also Regulation of Short-Term 

Natural Gas Transportation Services and 

Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Transportation 

Services, Order No. 637, 65 FR 10,156 (Feb. 25, 

2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,091, at 31,304– 

31,306, clarified, Order No. 637–A, 65 FR 35,706 

(June 5, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,099, reh’g 

denied, Order No. 637–B, 65 FR 47,284 (Aug. 2, 

2000), 92 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2000), aff’d in part and 

remanded in part sub nom. Interstate Natural Gas 

Ass’n of America v. FERC, 285 F.3d 18, 350 U.S. 

App. DC 366 (DC Cir. 2002), order on remand, 101 

FERC ¶ 61,127 (2002), order on reh’g, 106 FERC ¶ 

61,088 (2004), aff’d sub nom. American Gas Ass’n 

v. FERC, 428 F.3d 255, 368 U.S. App. DC 176 (DC 

Cir. 2005). 

22See Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 

31,241 at P 809 (stating that based on ten years of 

experience regulating capacity reassignments, the 

Commission believes there are no significant market 

power concerns to justify retaining the price caps 

for any transmission customer). 

23 18 CFR 35.10b; see also, Order No. 890, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at P 817; Notice Providing 

Guidance on the Filing of Information on 

Transmission Capacity Reassignments in Electric 

Quarterly Reports, 124 FERC ¶ 61,244 (2008). 

24 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d) (2000). 

25 5 CFR 1320.11 (2009). 

Commission proposes to permanently 

remove the price cap on the 

reassignments of capacity and revise 

section 23 of the pro forma OATT 

accordingly, as indicated in Appendix 

A. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to direct transmission 

providers to submit corresponding 

revisions to their OATT’s within 30 

days of publication of the Final Rule in 

the Federal Register. 

13. The secondary market for capacity 

reassignments experienced strong 

growth during the study period. Both 

the number of transactions and capacity 

volume reassigned rose throughout the 

two and one half year time span. The 

number of reassignments increased 

dramatically from just over 200 in 2007 

to almost 32,000 in 2009. Almost 36 

TWh flowed on reassigned paths in 

2009, up from 3 TWh in 2007. 

Moreover, the majority of resale prices, 

99 percent, were at or below the price 

cap. While few of the reassignments 

were at prices above the cap, it appears 

from the data that reassignment prices 

comported with pricing differentials 

between markets. For instance, there 

were numerous reassignments between 

points in New England and Quebec with 

prices comparable to the average spread 

in energy prices between the regions. 

These data suggest that resale prices 

reflect market fundamentals rather than 

the exercise of market power. 

14. During the study period, there 

were 32 transactions of reassigned 

capacity by an affiliate of a transmission 

provider reassigned for more than the 

tariff rate. However, the percentage of 

such over-cap reassignments (0.5 

percent) was in line with that of overcap reassignments by non-affiliates (0.4 

percent), leading us to believe that 

affiliate abuse is not an issue. For these 

reasons, the Commission proposes to 

find that the Staff Report supports the 

Commission’s decision to lift the price 

cap beyond October 1, 2010 on all 

capacity reassignments. 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal. Additionally, given 

that the levels of reassignment and 

growth of reassignment varies 

substantially across transmission 

providers, we believe that there is 

significant potential for further growth 

in the reassignment of capacity. 

Accordingly, the Commission also seeks 

comments as to whether there are any 

other reforms that it should undertake to 

create a more efficient and vibrant 

secondary market for transmission 

capacity. Are there non-price limitations 

or regional factors that may be 

continuing to limit the utility of 

reassignment? To the extent any 

limitations exist, the Commission seeks 

comment on how they should be 

addressed. For example, are there 

reforms to the redirect process that 

would enable all firm customers to use 

their firm capacity more flexibly and 

thereby facilitate capacity reassignment 

by making point changes by the buyer 

of reassigned capacity more efficient? In 

the natural gas industry, the 

Commission has established a system of 

secondary firm point priorities to 

provide greater flexibility in the use of 

firm capacity.21 We request comment on 

whether such an approach could be 

used effectively in the electric industry 

and what impact, if any such an 

approach would have on system 

operations. 

16. As discussed above, we propose to 

find that the Commission Staff Report 

supports the Commission’s belief that 

there are no significant market power 

concerns to justify retaining price caps 

for any transmission customer.22 With 

regard to affiliate abuse, the Staff Report 

finds that less than one percent of 

transactions performed by affiliates 

during the study period were transacted 

above the tariff rate during the study 

period. While staff did not detect 

affiliate abuse associated with 

reassignment by affiliates of the 

transmission provider during the study 

period, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether market participants have 

experienced any such affiliate abuse 

that would argue for maintaining the 

price cap on affiliates of the 

transmission provider, or if other 

safeguards are needed for such 

reassignments. How should 

reassignment by a transmission 

provider’s retail service function (that is 

not a separate affiliate) be treated? 

17. Based on the Commission’s 

experience and the two-year study, the 

Commission believes that the absence of 

a price cap for transmission capacity 

reassignment does not present any 

major market concerns. Nevertheless, 

the Commission is committed to 

ensuring just and reasonable 

transmission service that is not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential and, 

therefore, will continue to monitor the 

secondary market of capacity 

reassignments for evidence of abuse of 

market power. The Commission receives 

sufficient information to monitor the 

secondary market for capacity 

reassignment because pursuant to 

section 23 of the pro forma OATT: (1) 

All sales of capacity must be conducted 

through or otherwise posted on the 

transmission provider’s OASIS on or 

before the date of service; and, (2) 

assignees of transmission capacity must 

execute a service agreement prior to the 

date on which the reassigned service 

commences. In addition, transmission 

providers must aggregate and 

summarize in an electric quarterly 

report the data contained in these 

service agreements.23

III. Information Collection Statement 

18. The following collection of 

information contained in this proposed 

rule is subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995.24 OMB’s 

regulations require OMB to approve 

certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency rule.25


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24831 

26These burden estimates apply only to this 

NOPR and do not reflect upon all of FERC–516 or 

FERC–717. 

27Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 

(Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations 

Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

28 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2009). 

29 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

30The sources for this figure are FERC Form No. 

1 and FERC Form No. 1–F data. 

31 Id. 

32The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines a ‘‘small 

entity’’ as ‘‘one which is independently owned and 

operated and which is not dominant in its field of 

operation.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 601(6)(2000); 15 

U.S.C. 632(a)(1) (2000). In Mid-Tex Elec. Coop. v. 

FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 340–343 (DC Cir. 1985), the 

court accepted the Commission’s conclusion that, 

since virtually all of the public utilities that it 

regulates do not fall within the meaning of the term 

‘‘small entities’’ as defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission did not need to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in 

connection with its proposed rule governing the 

allocation of costs for construction work in progress 

(CWIP). The CWIP rules applied to all public 

utilities. The revised pro forma OATT will apply 

only to those public utilities that own, control or 

operate interstate transmission facilities. These 

entities are a subset of the group of public utilities 

found not to require preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for the CWIP rule. 

Burden Estimate: The public reporting 

and records retention burdens for the 

proposed reporting requirements and 

the records retention requirement are as 

follows.26

Data collection Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total annual 

hours 

Conforming tariff changes ............................................................................... 176 1 10 1,760 

Cost to Comply: $200,640. 1,760 hours 

@ $114 an hour (average cost of attorney 

($200 per hour), consultant ($150), 

technical ($80), and administrative 

support ($25)). 

OMB’s regulations require it to 

approve certain information collection 

requirements imposed by an agency 

rule. The Commission is submitting 

notification of this proposed rule to 

OMB. If the proposed requirements are 

adopted they will be mandatory 

requirements. 

Title: FERC–516, Electric Rate 

Schedules and Tariff Filings; FERC–717, 

Standards for Business Practices and 

Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities. 

Action: Proposed Collections. 

OMB Control Nos. 1902–0096 and 

1902–0173. 

Respondents: Transmission Providers. 

Frequency of responses: One time. 

Necessity of the Information: 

19. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission is proposing amendments 

to the pro forma OATT to ensure that 

transmission services are provided on a 

basis that is just, reasonable and not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential. 

The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to strengthen the pro 

forma OATT by encouraging more 

robust competition. We propose to 

achieve this goal by removing the price 

cap previously imposed on 

reassignments of transmission capacity. 

20. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: 

Michael Miller, Office of the Executive 

Director, Phone: (202) 502–8415, fax: 

(202) 273–0873, e-mail: 

michael.miller@ferc.gov] 

21. For submitting comments 

concerning the collections of 

information and the associated burden 

estimate(s), please send your comments 

to the contact listed above and to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 

395–4650, fax: (202) 395–7285. Due to 

security concerns, comments should be 

sent electronically to the following email address: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please 

reference the docket number of this 

proposed rulemaking in your 

submission. 

IV. Environmental Analysis 

22. 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.27 The Commission 

concludes that neither an 

Environmental Assessment nor an 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

required for this NOPR under section 

380.4(a)(15) of the Commission’s 

regulations, which provides a 

categorical exemption for approval of 

actions under sections 205 and 206 of 

the FPA relating to the filing of 

schedules containing all rates and 

charges for the transmission or sale 

subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction, plus the classification, 

practices, contracts and regulations that 

affect rates, charges, classifications and 

services.28

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 29 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would 

apply to public utilities that own, 

control or operate interstate 

transmission facilities, not to electric 

utilities per se. The total number of 

public utilities that, absent waiver, 

would have to modify their current 

OATTs by filing the revised pro forma 

OATT is 176.30 Of these only six public 

utilities, or less than two percent, 

dispose of four million MWh or less per 

year.31 The Commission does not 

consider this a substantial number, and 

in any event, these small entities may 

seek waiver of these requirements.32

Moreover, the criteria for waiver that 

would be applied under this rulemaking 

for small entities is unchanged from that 

used to evaluate requests for waiver 

under Order Nos. 888 and 889. Thus, 

small entities who have received waiver 

of the requirements to have on file an 

open access tariff or to operate an 

OASIS would be unaffected by the 

requirements of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

VI. Comment Procedures 

24. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments on the 

matters and issues proposed in this 

notice to be adopted, including any 

related matters or alternative proposals 

that commenters may wish to discuss. 

Comments are due July 6, 2010. 

Comments must refer to Docket No. 

RM10–22–000, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address in their comments. 

25. 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
24832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

26. Commenters that are not able to 

file comments electronically must send 

an original and 14 copies of their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

27. 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. 

VII. Document Availability 

28. 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. 

29. 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. 

30. 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 e-mail at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24833 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06MY10.001</GPH>
24834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06MY10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 24835 

[FR Doc. 2010–10500 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0003] 

RIN No. 1218–AC46 

Infectious Diseases 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information 

and comment on occupational exposure 

to infectious agents in settings where 

healthcare is provided, (e.g., hospitals, 

outpatient clinics, clinics in schools and 

correctional facilities), and healthcarerelated settings (e.g., laboratories that 

handle potentially infectious biological 

materials, medical examiner offices and 

mortuaries). OSHA is interested in 

strategies that are being used in such 

healthcare and other healthcare-related 

work settings to mitigate the risk of 

occupationally-acquired infectious 

diseases. As such, OSHA would like to 

collect information and data on the 

facilities and the tasks potentially 

exposing workers to this risk; successful 

employee infection control programs; 

control methodologies being utilized 

(including engineering, work practice, 

and administrative controls and 

personal protective equipment); medical 

surveillance programs; and training. 

OSHA will use the information received 

in response to this request to determine 

what action, if any, the Agency may take 

to further limit the spread of 

occupationally-acquired infectious 

diseases in these types of settings. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

the following date: 

Hard copy: Your comments must be 

submitted (postmarked or sent) by 

August 4, 2010. 

Facsimile and electronic 

transmission: Your comments must be 

sent by August 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and additional materials by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments and attachments 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for making 

electronic submissions: 

Fax: If your submissions, including 

attachments, are not longer than 10 

pages, you may fax them to the OSHA 

Docket Office at (202) 693–1648; or 

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 

messenger or courier service: You must 

submit three copies of your comments 

and attachments to the OSHA Docket 

Office, Docket No. OSHA–2010–0003, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room N– 

2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries 

(hand, express mail, messenger and 

courier service) are accepted during the 

Department of Labor’s and Docket 

Office’s normal business hours, 8:15 

a.m.–4:45 p.m., EST. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the OSHA 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(OSHA Docket No. OSHA–2010–0003). 

Submissions, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: To read or download 

submissions or other material in the 

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov 

or the OSHA Docket Office at the 

address above. All documents in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP06MY10.003</GPH>