17726 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2 16 U.S.C. 824h (1988).

But if the order’s perception of undue

discrimination is accurate, and I believe it is,

would it not suggest that some power supply

contracts negotiated in that environment

were infected with undue discrimination and

therefore unlawful? Would it not be

appropriate, and more symmetrical, to allow

such customers the right to make a filing

asking the Commission to determine whether

their current contract is unduly

discriminatory, unjust or unreasonable? We

would not, of course, allow such customers

to escape their stranded cost responsibility in

any event. Even if we allowed customers to

make such filings, they would remain fully

responsible for the costs reasonably incurred

on their behalf.

A more symmetrical approach to customers

and utilities during the transition to

competitive markets would be consistent

with the Commission’s Order 636. There, the

Commission granted all pipeline ‘‘sales’’

customers the right to choose other gas

suppliers but granted all pipelines 100

percent recovery of their eligible and prudent

transition costs. In granting ‘‘conversion

rights’’ to pipeline sales customers, the

Commission found that continued

enforcement of customers’ existing purchase

obligations, entered into when pipelines

provided bundled service and had a virtual

monopoly over certain aspects of interstate

service, was contrary to the requirements of

the Natural Gas Act.

I am not suggesting today that we mirror

precisely the natural gas model by granting

all customers, regardless of contracts, the

right to choose other suppliers. I am

suggesting, however, that during the

comment period we give full and fair

consideration to the argument that power

customers with contracts lacking explicit

stranded cost recovery provisions should

have the same right we grant utilities to make

filings seeking contract modifications

regardless of Mobile-Sierra restrictions. I am

confident that commenters will give us the

benefit of their thinking on this issue.

II. Dissenting Opinion

Finally, let me turn briefly to the sole issue

on which I will be dissenting in part from an

otherwise exceptionally strong order. That

issue involves this Commission’s role and

relationship with the states in making

determinations with respect to stranded costs

arising from retail competition and from

municipalizations.

There have been full and vigorous

discussions at the Commission about how to

handle this issue. My goal, which the entire

Commission shares, is to strike an

appropriate balance that ensures the recovery

of stranded costs, and ensures that the

legitimate rights of states are respected. We

have all struggled with these issues in good

faith. I simply disagree with the majority in

certain respects about how to accomplish

these goals.

First, I will address retail competition.

Under the NOPR, this Commission would

allow filings seeking recovery of stranded

costs related to retail competition only when

the state regulatory commission does not

have authority under state law to address

stranded costs at the time retail wheeling is

required.

I find this approach too narrow. I would

allow such filings when the state commission

lacks authority to decide the issue or when

the state commission has authority but does

not decide the issue. I would not secondguess the state decision, but I would not

allow retail stranded costs to ‘‘fall through

the cracks’’ merely because the state

commission has, but does not use, authority

to decide the issue.

On municipalization, the NOPR proposes

making this Commission the primary forum

for seeking recovery of stranded costs. The

NOPR says that, if a state has allowed

recovery of any stranded costs from

municipalized customers, this Commission

will deduct that amount from the amount we

determine to be recoverable. In other words,

even when states have and exercise the

authority to decide the recoverability of

stranded costs related to municipalization,

this Commission would take over and

federalize the issue.

I cannot support this approach. The

Federal Power Act does not constitute this

Commission as the court of appeals to

challenge unsatisfactory state decisions. It is

not this Commission’s role to stand in

judgment of policy choices and decisions

lawfully made by our state counterparts.

In my judgment, the following principles

should govern this Commission’s approach to

stranded costs arising from either retail

competition or municipalization. In either

case, utilities are entitled to a decision on the

recoverability of such costs. It would be

unfair, and would unduly jeopardize the

financial health of utilities, for stranded costs

to slip through because no regulatory

commission provides a forum and decides

the issue.

For either retail competition or

municipalization, when the state commission

has authority to address the issue, and uses

such authority to decide the recoverability of

the stranded costs, the state’s decision should

not be second-guessed by this Commission.

However, when a state commission does not

have the authority to decide the

recoverability of stranded costs, or has

authority but does not use it, this

Commission should act on requests for

stranded cost recovery.

My approach would assure utilities of

getting a decision on the merits of their

claim. Costs would not be stranded for lack

of a regulatory decision. At the same time,

this Commission would allow states to make

decisions, when they have authority, on

issues of critical concern to their local

utilities and ratepayers. Only if states lack, or

fail to use, such authority would this

Commission step in to assure the utility of

receiving a decision on the merits.

My views on how we should handle

stranded costs arising from municipalization

are influenced by the fact that, according to

commenters, roughly 14 states have

municipalization statutes that do in fact

authorize states to deal with stranded cost

issues. Arkansas, for example, has a statute

enacted in 1987 that appears to give the

Arkansas Public Service Commission full

authority to deal with the stranded cost issue

in a way that protects both the remaining

customers and shareholders. It is an

extensive, thoughtful statute that deals with

a wide range of issues. It is, apparently, the

will of the sovereign state of Arkansas that

this state statute be enforced. I see no reason

to yank this issue from the Arkansas

Commission, or from any other state

commission that has statutory authority to

act.

In that vein, if this Commission were to

decide the recoverability of stranded costs for

either retail competition or muncipalization

(because the state lacked authority or did not

decide the issue), I believe we should adopt

procedures allowing the affected state

commissions to participate in our proceeding

in a meaningful way. Specifically, I propose

allowing state participation through one of

the procedures specified in section 209 of the

Federal Power Act. 2 These include joint state

boards, joint hearings, concurrent hearings

and technical conferences. I have no views at

this time on which of these tools could or

should be used in particular cases. The

decision on which of these tools to use can

be made in individual cases, as they arise.

But, clearly, they are useful mechanisms for

obtaining state input in proceedings

involving retail competition and

municipalization.

For all of these reasons, I will concur in

part and dissent in part. In virtually all

respects, this is an excellent order; except as

I have noted, it has my wholehearted

support.

William L. Massey,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 95–8534 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

18 CFR Parts 141 and 388

[Docket No. RM95–9–000]

Real-Time Information Networks;

Notice of Technical Conference and

Request for Comments

March 29, 1995

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Technical Conference

and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission),

is issuing this notice to announce a

technical conference to be scheduled at

a later date, and, in preparation for that

conference, to request comments on:

whether real-time information networks

(RINs) or some other option is the best

method to ensure that potential

purchasers of transmission services

receive access to information to enable

them to obtain open access transmission

service on a non-discriminatory basis

from public utilities that own and/or

control facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce; and what
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17727

1See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities & Recovery of Stranded

Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket Nos.

RM95–8–000 & RM94–7–001 (1995).

standards should be adopted if the

Commission requires such public

utilities to institute RINs systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Office of

the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol Street,

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

D. Cohen (Legal Information), Electric

Rates and Corporate Regulation, Office

of the General Counsel, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 825 North

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

20426, (202) 208–0321

Marvin Rosenberg (Technical

Information), Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol

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

(202) 208–1283

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 Room 3104 at 941 North Capitol

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

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

text of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing (202) 208–1397. To

access CIPS, set your communications

software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600,

7200, 4800, 2400, 1200, or 300 bps, full

duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop

bit. The full text of this document will

be available on CIPS for 60 days from

the date of issuance in ASCII and

Wordperfect 5.1 format. After 60 days,

the document will be archived, but still

accessible. The complete text on

diskette in WordPerfect format may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation, also located in Room 3104,

941 North Capitol Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

Introduction

The Commission is considering

requiring each public utility (or its

agent) that owns and/or controls

facilities used for the transmission of

electric energy in interstate commerce to

create a real-time information network

(RIN) to ensure that potential purchasers

of transmission services have access to

information to enable them to obtain

open access transmission services on a

non-discriminatory basis from the

public utility. This initiative is being

taken in conjunction with the

Commission’s proposed rules, 1 today

being issued, that would require public

utilities to provide open access nondiscriminatory transmission services

(Open Access NOPR) and would permit

the recovery of legitimate and verifiable

stranded costs in certain circumstances.

The Commission’s goal in this

proceeding is to establish uniform

requirements for a RIN or other

communications device at the same

time that the Commission adopts a rule

requiring open access nondiscriminatory transmission services. To

accomplish this objective, the

Commission invites interested persons

to file comments and to participate in a

Technical Conference in which they can

make presentations on their positions.

Thereafter, the Commission expects to

hold informal conferences, enlisting

working groups to reach consensus on

any remaining issues.

We expect that input from the

Technical Conference and informal

conferences will be the basis for

subsequent procedures. This notice sets

a timetable to be followed so that

requirements on RINS can be in place

no later than the effective date of an

open access rule.

Background

In the Open Access NOPR, the

Commission is inviting comments on a

proposed rule that would require any

public utility that owns and/or controls

facilities used for the transmission of

electric energy in interstate commerce to

have on file an open access transmission

tariff.

To be effective, however, nondiscriminatory open access transmission

service requires transmission customers

to be able to compete effectively with

the public utility that owns or controls

the transmission. Customers must have

simultaneous access to the same

information available to the

transmission owner. Thus, in this

proceeding, the Commission expects to

require RINs or other options to ensure

that potential and actual transmission

service customers receive access to

information so that they can obtain

service comparable to that provided by

transmission owners (or controllers) to

themselves.

Discussion

A. Objectives

As noted above, the Commission

expects to undertake further procedures

in this docket after the Technical

Conference and informal conferences

are held and input from those

conferences is evaluated. Nevertheless,

to help participants focus on the issues,

the Commission here sets out its

preliminary views. Any requirement we

establish must have safeguards to ensure

that public utilities owning and/or

controlling transmission facilities use

the same procedures and meet the same

substantive requirements when they

arrange transmission to support their

wholesale sales and purchases as are

required for third parties. Further, we

expect that each public utility (or a

control area operator acting as its agent)

that provides transmission service must,

at a minimum, give its customers

electronic access in real time to

information on transmission capacity

availability, ancillary services,

scheduling of power transfers, economic

dispatch, current operating and

economic conditions, system reliability,

and responses to system conditions.

This means that public utilities or

their agents must give competitors and

other users of the transmission system

access to the same information available

to the public utility personnel who trade

(sell or purchase) power in the

wholesale market, and at the same time.

Moreover, this information cannot be

declared privileged (and kept from

competitors) if it is available to the

company’s own employees who trade

wholesale power. Thus, if a utility

wishes to keep this information

confidential, it must assign control over

this information to employees whose

duties do not involve trading in

wholesale power, and it must

implement procedures to ensure that the

traders do not get access to the

information unless and until that

information becomes public. The

Commission invites parties to comment

on the best way to implement these

requirements in their comments and in

their presentations at the Technical

Conference and informal conferences.

RINs should operate under industrywide standards; otherwise, each RIN

could contain different information,

have different file formats, or use

different means to transfer information

between utilities and customers. We are

concerned that some customers (those

who need transmission service across

utility boundaries) might be forced to

obtain information in different and

perhaps incompatible environments.

Efficient wholesale power markets
17728 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions

Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and

Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial

Wellhead Decontrol, 57 Fed. Reg. 13,267 (April 16,

1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶30,939

(April 8, 1992); order on reh’g, Order No. 636–A,

57 Fed. Reg. 36,128 (August 12, 1992), III FERC

Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶30,950 (August 3, 1992).

3See Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards

Required Under Part 284 of the Commission’s

Regulations, Order No. 563, 59 FR 516 (Jan. 5,

1994); III FERC Stats. and Regs., Regulations

Preambles ¶30,988 (1993), order on reh’g, Order No.

563–A, 59 FR 23,624 (May 9, 1994); III FERC Stats.

and Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶30,994, reh’g

denied, Order No. 563–B, 68 FERC ¶61,002, Order

No. 563–C, order accepting modifications, Order

No. 563–C, 68 FERC ¶61,362 (1994).

4We note that there is an extensive network

already in place to conduct intercompany

transactions reliably. To the maximum extent

possible, we intend to build on the existing

institutional arrangements and ongoing efforts to

help better schedule, monitor, and model

transactions involving multiple control areas.

5The Commission made use of working groups in

drafting the Commission’s standards for EBBs. See,

e.g., Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards

Required Under Part 284 of the Commission’s

Regulations, Final Rule, Order No. 563–A, 59 FR

23624 (May 9, 1994); III FERC Stats. & Regs.,

Regulations Preambles ¶30,994 (1994).

6To promote candor and productivity, Staff will

set up and sponsor these meetings, but, where

appropriate, will not attend the meetings while the

parties discuss the issues. The parties are

instructed, however, to brief Staff fully on their

progress at any such meetings.

require that information formats not

impede the ability of parties to make

trades in a timely manner within and

across utility boundaries. Such

impediments should be eliminated, or at

a minimum, reduced to the maximum

extent possible.

In addition, we request comments on

the following questions:

Information availability: What information

should be available on a RIN? Possibilities

include transmission availability data,

scheduling information, information on

economic dispatch, system reliability

conditions, service interruptions, and other

information that parties might suggest.

Would a RIN be appropriate, not only to

report transactions, but to conduct the

transactions themselves? If so, for what kinds

of transactions would this be appropriate?

RINs standards: What standard formats

would be appropriate for transferring files

containing specific information? What are

appropriate communication protocols? How

can a RIN be designed to accommodate not

only today’s needs, but also those in the

future, such as an ability to trade power and

have real-time price signals?

Attached to this notice is a Staff

Discussion Paper that gives Staff’s

preliminary views on some of the issues

that need to be addressed in this

proceeding. We have attached this

document to help the parties focus on

pertinent issues as early in the process

as possible.

B. Timetable for Comments, Technical

Conference, and Informal Conferences

The Commission’s experience with

Order No. 636 2 and electronic bulletin

boards (EBBs) in the natural gas

industry 3 has taught us that when

industry standards are needed, they

should be established as early as

possible. We wish to avoid systems

being developed, and expenses being

incurred, before consensus can be

reached on the best way to proceed.

These same considerations also

persuade us that a case-by-case

approach to setting standards for

electronic information transfer is

inappropriate. Public utilities should

not be required to invest extensive

capital in a RIN or EBB that might be

obsolete in the near future.4

We intend, therefore, to have

requirements in place no later than the

date when we issue any final rules on

open access transmission. In this way,

we hope to avoid unnecessary

expenditures by public utilities.

At the Technical Conference, the

Commission will focus on determining

exactly what information must be made

available to transmission customers and

what standards are needed as to the

transfer of this information on a realtime basis from transmission operators

to their customers, including the public

utility itself for its wholesale

transactions.

The Technical Conference will be

open to all interested persons. The exact

date, time, and location of the Technical

Conference will be announced in a

subsequent notice.

To better organize the Technical

Conference, interested persons are

invited to submit written comments.

Comments must be received on or

before [insert a date 60 days following

the Federal Register publication date].

The comments should be no more than

25 pages in length, double spaced on

81⁄2′′ x 11′′ paper, with standard

margins. Parties must submit fourteen

(14) written copies of their comments.

In addition, commenters are requested

to submit a copy of their comments on

a 31⁄2 inch diskette, formatted for MSDOS based computers. In light of our

ability to translate MS-DOS based

materials, the text need only be

submitted in the format and version in

which it was generated (i.e., MS Word,

Wordperfect, ASCII, etc.). It is not

necessary to reformat word processor

generated text to ASCII. For Macintosh

users, it would be helpful to save the

documents in Macintosh word

processor format and then write them to

files on a diskette formatted for MS-DOS

machines. The comments must be

submitted to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426, and their

caption should refer to Docket No.

RM95–9–000.

All written comments will be placed

in the Commission’s public files and

will be available for inspection or

copying in the Commission’s Public

Reference Room (Room 3104, 941 North

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

20426), during normal business hours.

The Commission also will make all

comments publicly available on its EBB.

Following the Technical Conference,

the Commission’s Staff will promptly

schedule a series of informal

conferences using, as appropriate,

working groups enlisting the

participants at the Technical

Conference.5 The informal conferences

are intended to narrow or resolve issues

and to help the Commission determine

what information must be made

available, and what standards are

needed, for the delivery of pertinent

information on a real-time basis from

transmission operators to their

customers, including the public utility

itself.

Staff will designate what working

groups are to be formed, when they will

meet, and what topics they will

consider. Staff will work with these

working groups as needed.6 The

working groups will be invited to reach

consensus on the issues and report that

consensus to the Commission. The

working group reports should identify

issues where no consensus is possible

so that the Commission may take

appropriate action to resolve all

remaining technical issues.

By direction of the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

Staff Discussion Paper Electronic

Bulletin Boards and Real-Time

Information Networks

Introduction

The Commission has issued a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing

non-discriminatory open access

transmission services. The NOPR

proposes that public utilities provide all

potential wholesale transmission users,

including the wholesale power

marketing department of the

transmission owner, simultaneous

access to transmission and ancillary

services. Potential customers’ access to

information on transmission capacity

and other matters pertaining to

transmission services must be made

comparable to the information access
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17729

1See Report on Electric Utilities’ Response to the

Cold Wave of January 1994, Report by NERC Blue

Ribbon Task Force at 10 (Apr. 11, 1994).

available to the power marketing

department of the transmission owner

and its affiliates. Staff believes that

electronic communication is critical to

achieving comparable access to

information, which in turn is a

cornerstone of comparable access to

transmission service. Comparable access

by customers to information as it

becomes available is the key to both a

successful comparable access program

and competitive power markets for

electricity. Rapid transfer of information

between a transmitting utility’s

computers and those of its potential

wholesale competitors is necessary to

achieve these goals.

The technical conference begins the

process of determining what

information and procedures will be

required to achieve comparable access

to information. We request comments or

concrete proposals that address the

issues and questions raised in this

paper. Areas that need to be addressed

include:

• Information Needs. What specific

information is required to ensure that all

eligible parties (including the

transmission owner) have comparable

access to information needed to conduct

wholesale power transactions over the

transmission system?

• Type of Information System. What

types of information systems are

available to communicate transmission

information, and which of these are

most appropriate to achieve comparable

access to information?

• Standards and Systems

Development. What standard record

formats should be developed to

exchange information? What protocols

are needed? Should regional systems, or

a national system, be developed?

This paper provides short discussions

of Staff’s understanding of the major

issues and options in these areas. Each

discussion is followed by a list of

questions intended to guide comments.

Information Needed for Comparability

Comparability requires that wholesale

transmission customers be provided

with the same information that the

transmission owner or controller has

about the availability and price of

transmission services, and that the

information be provided at the same

time and cost. A customer, when

making wholesale power transactions

using transmission services, should

have the same information the

transmission owner has available to

make wholesale power transactions.

This includes, but is not necessarily

limited to, the following types of

information:

• Availability of firm and non-firm

transmission services (including

ancillary services), rates for these

services and the amount and terms of

any available rate discounts.

Information on the opportunity costs on

constrained paths and the incremental

cost of expansion, if known.

• Hourly transfer capacities with

other interfacing control areas on a time

interval corresponding to the interval

that a transmission owner uses in

committing its own units. For example,

if the interval is weekly, hourly transfer

capacities should be provided each

week as the transmission owner

commits its own units.

• Hourly amounts of firm and nonfirm power scheduled over each of the

owner’s interfaces with other control

areas. These quantities should be the

amounts scheduled over the following

hour. They should be provided at some

short interval before the start of each

hour (e.g., 15 minutes).

• Transmission outages, or planned

and forced unit outages that may affect

trans-mission availability, as they

become known, as well as anticipated

and actual interruptions of services.

• Load flow data that would allow

customers to do their own preliminary

review of incremental transfer capability

to accommodate long-term transfers.

Updates to load flow information

should be made available to customers

whenever the transmission owner

updates its load flow information.

• Transaction specific information on

all requests for transmission service

(including requests by the transmission

owner’s wholesale power marketing

personnel). This information should be

sufficient to permit customers to

evaluate the current state of

transmission requests on the system and

to monitor potential discrimination.

This information should be provided

when requests are received and updated

when the status of a request changes.

• Transmission capacity available for

resale by customers seeking to resell

their rights to transmission service, and

announcements by prospective buyers

who are seeking to acquire rights to

transmission service. These requests

should be made available when

received.

Staff believes that transmissionowning utilities have such information

available in the normal course of

business under today’s current industry

practices. We also believe this

information is important for any parties

using transmission services to perform

wholesale power transactions.

Accordingly, comparability requires that

such information be made available to

prospective customers and to the

transmission owner’s wholesale power

marketing department on the same

basis. However, the list is provided only

as an example of our current

understanding of the information. We

invite comment on additional

information that is needed, but not

included in the list, as well as

information in the list that is not

needed.

Current industry practice should not

be the sole standard for judging what

information to consider for inclusion in

information networks. Consideration

should be given to likely future industry

developments, and how these might

affect information needs. In particular,

the role of electronic information in the

dispatch function may change

significantly as power markets change.

Future networks may need to provide

for the electronic trading of power. The

design of current systems should retain

sufficient flexibility to accommodate

these types of future developments. We

invite comment on what developments

might affect the design of a current

information network, and how

consideration of such developments

might be considered in the design of

today’s systems.

Questions Regarding Information

Needed for Comparability

1. What information about capacity

availability is needed? Is this

information needed with respect to

interfaces with other control areas and

within a single control area?

2. How often does information on

available capacity need to be updated?

What other information is necessary? In

designing RINs requirements, what

consideration should the Commission

give to NERC’s interest in improving

and communicating the calculation of

transfer capability in real-time.1

3. What information about

transmission constraints should be

included? Is it possible to develop

information about anticipated

constraints and their associated

opportunity cost? Could information on

interruptions be conveyed after a

constraint has occurred?

4. Should the information include

requests for transmission capacity,

offers of transmission capacity (from

utility and third party entitlement

holders), rates and an index of

entitlement holders? How often does

information need to be updated? What

other information is necessary to

facilitate the development of a
17730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules

secondary market for transmission

capacity?

5. Can requests for transmission

service be submitted electronically,

through an EBB or an information

network, rather than by telephone or

FAX? What specific information is

needed for electronic submission of

transmission requests?

Systems for Communicating

Transmission Information

Many kinds of information systems

could support electronic exchange of

transmission information between a

transmission-owning public utility and

its customers, potential customers, and

the transmission owner’s wholesale

marketing department. But there is a

tradeoff between the cost of a system

and the capabilities it offers. We would

like comment on the capabilities needed

in a system to communicate

transmission information and what type

of system will best meet those needs. In

order to provide technical background

for this discussion, we offer the

following three categories as general

system types, from the simple to the

more complex:

• Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB).

One simple method of electronically

communicating information is to use

EBB displays. A user of this type of EBB

simply connects to (logs onto) the EBB

and sees the information displayed. We

believe this simple type of EBB should

also permit a user to post information,

such as a transmission request, to the

EBB.

This type of information system may

be adequate for small customers who are

not very active in the transmission

market and who have only an

occasional need for small amounts of

timely information. However, as

information needs increase, the method

of EBB displays may become

inadequate. A major disadvantage is that

displayed information cannot be

processed directly by the receiving

party’s own computer. Thus, if the

receiving party wants to use this

information in its own computer

displays or as part of an analysis, it

must enter it again. Reentering

information is slow, error-prone and

costly, particularly for users who need

large amounts of information from

several different EBBs. For this reason,

even the simplest form of EBB should

provide a capability that permits users

to capture the information presented in

the display on their computer systems.

• EBBs with Standardized File

Transfer. A second method of

communicating information is to allow

users to transfer files between the EBB

and the user’s computer system.

Downloading (transferring the file from

the EBB to the user’s computer system)

eliminates the need to reenter

information into a user’s computer

system when it is already present on the

EBB. Uploading (transferring a file from

the user’s system to the EBB) permits

information already present in a file on

a user’s computer to be sent to the EBB

without manual reentry. Therefore, the

capability of transferring files

containing relevant information

between the EBB and its users solves the

data reentry problem for large and more

sophisticated users.

File transfer capability also makes

possible efficient processing of

information from several different EBBs.

Computer software can be programmed

to dial each EBB automatically and to

transfer files from (or to) each EBB. The

user can then choose how to display the

information, or process it directly in a

computer program. Third parties can

aggregate transmission information from

multiple EBBs to provide an

information service for customers who

prefer to use a single EBB. Standard file

formats and protocols for the transfer of

information are essential for the

efficient transfer of this information.

Without standard formats and transfer

protocols, a user must develop separate

methods and programs for transferring

files to and from each EBB.

• Real-time Information Network

(RIN) Connection. This type of network

permits a continuous information

connection between the transmissionowning public utility and users of the

transmission network. In contrast,

displays and downloads are means of

distributing information to users who

connect intermittently to an EBB

specifically to request information.

Continuous connection permits a user to

have all new information as soon as it

becomes available, without needing to

make specific requests. A user can

directly monitor all new information, or

use a computer program to monitor new

information selectively as it becomes

available. The computer program can

then identify time critical information

as soon as it is available and alert key

company staff of the need to take action.

To a customer, a RIN means the

immediate receipt of information when

it becomes available. Only some

customers may need information

immediately, and even these customers

will not need all information

immediately. We believe, however, that

some customers will need this type of

information connection, and that the

number of these customers will increase

over time as markets develop and

expand.

RINs would need standardized

formats for information and protocols

for its transfer. Such standards may be

different, and more complex, than

standards for file downloads and

uploads. However, the development of a

RIN could eliminate the need to develop

separate file transfer capabilities

through EBB uploads and downloads.

Such networks could be designed to

support both continuous connection

and intermittent access using the same

formats and transfer protocols.

Questions Regarding the Means of

Communicating Information

6. What information is sufficiently

time sensitive to require real-time

transmission and receipt? What

information is sufficiently unchanging

and time insensitive to permit efficient

transmission by request? Should the

amount and timing of real-time

information provided be a user option?

7. Is an EBB requirement necessary at

all if transmission-owning public

utilities are required to provide

information to, and receive information

and requests from, an information

network? Would EBBs be developed

voluntarily, either by utilities or third

parties, if data were available through

an information network?

8. What is the minimum acceptable

transfer time for the network? Should it

be measured in milli-seconds, seconds

or minutes? Should the transfer time be

a function of the information

transferred?

9. Should EBBs and/or RINs be

developed in several phases? If so, what

phases and timing are appropriate?

10. How can the development of EBBs

and RINs be made flexible enough to

accommodate future information needs?

11. Should the network be developed

using lines leased or can it use existing

Value Added Networks (VANs)?

Standards and System Development

Standardization of information,

record formats, and protocols for the

exchange of information are crucial to

computer-to-computer transfer of

information. Without standards, each

utility could develop its own file

formats and protocols to govern the

transfer of information. As experience

with the development of EBBs in the gas

industry has shown, different formats

and communication methods impose

significant costs on using information

and provide barriers to trade across

multiple companies. Moreover, once

companies design their own information

systems, they understandably tend to

resist the imposition of generic

standards. It is therefore especially

important to reach consensus on what
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17731

standards should govern the operation

of electronic information systems and

how information systems should be

developed in accordance with those

standards. We would also like comment

on how the cost of system development

and use should be recovered.

Questions Regarding Standards and

System Development

12. What standard information should

be included in the datasets to be

exchanged electronically? What

standard definitions and units should be

used for this information?

13. What standard record formats and

identification codes are needed to

exchange the information associated

with comparable access?

14. What standard codes should be

used to identify facilities,

interconnection points, and other

locations?

15. What standard protocol(s) should

be developed to download and upload

files, or to exchange information across

the information network?

16. Should a regional or national

information system be developed?

17. If some regional development of

information systems is desirable, what

regional entities should develop and

maintain the system? Do these entities

currently exist? If they do not exist, how

should they be developed?

18. What system development and

usage costs should be borne by all

transmission users, and what costs

should be paid for only by users of the

information system?

[FR Doc. 95–8553 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Chapter III

Review of Social Security

Administration Regulations

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice with Request for

Comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with President

Clinton’s memorandum of March 4,

1995 to heads of Departments and

Agencies which announced a

government-wide Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative, we are soliciting

comments on Social Security

Administration (SSA) regulations which

mandate burdens on States, other

governmental agencies or the private

sector and suggestions to reduce or

eliminate any such mandated burden.

DATES: To be sure your comments are

considered, we must receive them no

later than May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in writing to the

Commissioner of Social Security, P.O.

Box 1585, Baltimore, Maryland 21235,

sent by telefax to (410) 966–2830, sent

by E-mail to ‘‘regulations@ssa.gov,’’ or

delivered to the Division of Regulations

and Rulings, Social Security

Administration, 3–B–1 Operations

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,

Baltimore, Maryland 21235, between

8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular

business days. Comments may be

inspected during these same hours by

making arrangements with the contact

person shown below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Henry D. Lerner, Legal Assistant,

Division of Regulations and Rulings,

Social Security Administration, 6401

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21235, telephone (410) 965–1762.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Regulatory Reinvention Initiative

announced by the President on March 4,

1995 is designed to provide to all

Americans the benefits of effective

regulation while minimizing burdens on

States and members of the public. The

initiative is aimed primarily at

regulatory agencies which impose

mandatory burdens on States, other

governmental entities and the private

sector as part of their core business

processes.

While SSA is not generally regarded

as a ‘‘regulatory agency,’’ SSA does

issue regulations. However, SSA

regulations usually serve only to

amplify Congressional direction in

administering the social insurance and

assistance programs for which we are

responsible. While we have some

program rules which may create a

burden on the public in terms of forms

completion or other activities

concerning information collection, we

generally do not impose mandatory

burdens on States, other governmental

entities or the private sector.

We recognize that members of the

public may have a very different view

of the burdens imposed by SSA

regulations than the views of those who

administer the programs. In the hope of

obtaining the widest possible span of

viewpoints, we issue this invitation for

public comments on any SSA

regulations which mandate actions by

States, other governmental entities, or

the private sector. We are requesting

that the public assist us in identifying

any SSA regulation which creates such

a burden, along with suggested changes

to lessen or eliminate the burden. We

request further that commenters provide

specific details regarding the regulation

which imposes the burden, the nature of

the burden, and the recommended

solution.

We do not consider as part of this

initiative SSA regulations which

provide the rules we use to determine

entitlement to retirement, survivors,

disability insurance or supplemental

security income benefits since they do

not, by their very nature, impose

mandatory burdens. Also, we view as

outside the scope of this initiative our

internal operating procedures in which

members of the public do not have a

direct role, including the statutory

relationship under which State

Disability Determination Services make

disability determinations on behalf of

SSA.

We do consider ‘‘burdens’’ on

individuals and other segments of the

public as needing our attention.

However, in accord with the principles

of the National Performance Review we

initiated a process that allows customers

to provide input on such matters. By

means of focus groups, customer

surveys, comment cards, and other

means, we have in place a process for

determining the needs of the public we

serve. We will address burdens on

individuals through a separate initiative

to provide ‘‘world class service’’ to the

public. This is a long-term project

related to one of the Agency’s major

goals. Accordingly, we are restricting

this request for comments to those SSA

regulations which appear to impose

mandatory burdens on States, other

governmental entities, or the private

sector.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Shirley Chater,

Commissioner of Social Security.

[FR Doc. 95–8751 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[FI–33–94]

RIN 1545–AS76

Debt Instruments with Original Issue

Discount; Annuity Contracts

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains

proposed regulations relating to the