Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 10573

1 65 FR 81335 (Dec. 26, 2000); III FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 31,115 (Dec. 13, 2000). 2 18 CFR Parts 352, 357, and 385.

3 65 FR 50376 (Aug. 17, 2000), IV FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 32,553 at 33,961 (July 27, 2000).

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

8, 2001.

Vi L. Lipski,

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3694 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 352, 357, and 385

[Docket No. RM99–10–001; Order No.620–

A]

Revisions to and Electronic Filing of

the FERC Form No. 6 and Related

Uniform Systems of Accounts

Issued February 12, 2001.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.

SUMMARY: The Society for the

Preservation of Oil Pipeline Shippers

(SPOPS) filed a request for clarification

and rehearing of the Commission’s Final

Rule in Order No. 620, Revisions to and

Electronic Filing of the FERC Form No.

6 and Related Uniform Systems of

Accounts. The Commission provides

clarification and denies rehearing.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary C. Lauermann (Technical

Information), Office of the Executive

Director, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0087

Julia A. Lake (Legal Information), Office

of the General Counsel, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–2019

David H. Ulevich (Page 700

Information), Office of Markets,

Tariffs and Rates, 888 First Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202)

208–0678.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

In this order, the Commission

addresses a request for rehearing and

clarification of Order No. 620, the Final

Rule on the revisions to and electronic

filing of the FERC Form No. 6 and

related uniform systems of accounts,

issued on December 13, 2000.1 In Order

No. 620, the Commission amended Parts

352, 357, and 385 2 of its regulations in

order to better meet current and future

regulatory requirements and industry

needs; be more consistent with current

Generally Accepted Accounting

Principles; and to provide for the

electronic filing of FERC Form No. 6.

Order No. 620 is part of the

Commission’s ongoing program to

update and eliminate burdensome and

unnecessary accounting and reporting

requirements. These changes will

reduce, by about 25 percent, the burden

on regulated companies for maintaining

and reporting information under the

Commission’s regulations.

For the reasons stated below, the

Commission provides clarification and

denies rehearing.

II. Background

FERC Form No. 6, ‘‘Annual Report of

Oil Pipeline Companies,’’ collects

information on an annual basis to

enable the Commission to carry out its

responsibilities associated with the

regulation of oil pipeline companies

under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Order No. 620, among other things,

revised FERC Form No. 6 page 700,

‘‘Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis

Schedule.’’ Page 700 provides basic

cost-of-service and throughput

information that allows a shipper to

compare proposed changes in a

pipeline’s rates against the change in

level of the pipeline’s cost of service

and the change in the pipeline’s average

company-wide barrel-mile cost.

On January 12, 2001, the Society for

the Preservation of Oil Pipeline

Shippers (SPOPS) filed a timely request

for rehearing and clarification of Order

No. 620. SPOPS seeks rehearing of the

Final Rule’s requirement that pipelines

report total jurisdictional revenues on

Line 10 of page 700 rather than total

company revenues. Also, SPOPS asks

the Commission to clarify the Final Rule

regarding what cost-of-service

information must be reported on page

700.

Specifically, SPOPS argues that the

Final Rule’s requirement that oil

pipelines report total jurisdictional

revenues on Line No. 10 of page 700

results in a mismatch between the costs

and revenues reported on this page.

According to SPOPS, the Final Rule

permits oil pipeline companies to

exclude revenues earned from either

non-carrier services or nonjurisdictional carrier services which

could result in an understatement of

company revenues. SPOPS also argues

that pipelines will have an enhanced

opportunity to engage in an allocation

shell game if only jurisdictional costs

and revenues are reported on page 700.

SPOPS requests that the Commission

clarify what cost-of-service information

is to be reported on page 700: cost-ofservice data related to jurisdictional

operations or total company operations

including non-jurisdictional activities.

SPOPS cites the instructions listed on

page 700 that were effective prior to the

issuance of Order No. 620 which

required the total cost-of-service to be

computed on a total company basis

consistent with the Commission’s

Opinion No. 154–B, et al., methodology.

SPOPS argues total company cost-ofservice should be reported on page 700

although it acknowledges that pipelines

have been reporting cost-of-service data

on a jurisdictional basis.

The Association of Oil Pipelines

(AOPL) filed an answer on January 29,

2001. AOPL essentially responds that

Order No. 620, and page 700, properly

focus on jurisdictional revenues.

Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR

385.213(a)(2) (2000), prohibits answers

unless otherwise ordered by the

decisional authority. We find that good

cause exists to allow AOPL’s answer.

III. Discussion

We disagree with SPOPS’s assertion

that revised page 700, ‘‘Annual Cost of

Service Based Analysis Schedule,’’ of

FERC Form No. 6 results in a mismatch

between the costs and revenues reported

on this schedule, or that pipelines will

engage in an allocation shell game if

only jurisdictional costs and revenues

are reported on page 700.

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR) issued in this proceeding, the

Commission proposed to revise

Instruction No. 3 of page 700 to require

oil pipeline companies to report total

company revenues so that it would be

consistent with the total cost of service

reported on this page.3 SPOPS had

asserted in its comments to the NOPR

that the Commission should require

pipelines to report total company costs

and total company revenues on page

700.

In its comments on the NOPR, AOPL

explained that our proposed revision to

Instruction No. 3 would in fact result in

an inconsistency. That is, the total cost

of service computed using the Opinion

No. 154–B methodology does not equate

to total company costs; rather it

represents the aggregate cost of the

pipeline’s jurisdictional services. While

AOPL did not object to reporting total

10574 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

4Order No. 571, 59 FR 59137 (Nov. 16, 1994);

FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulation Preambles January

1991–June 1996] ¶ 31,006 at 31,168 (Oct. 28, 1994).

5See Instruction No. 6 of revised FERC Form No.

6 page 700.

6 65 FR 81335 (Dec. 26, 2000); III FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 31,115 at 31,960–31,961 (Dec. 13, 2000).

Also, see Instruction No. 7 of FERC Form No. 6 page

700.

company revenues on page 700, it

argued that only jurisdictional operating

revenues should be reported on this

page. In the Final Rule, the Commission

stated that it agreed with AOPL’s

comment and revised Line No. 10 of

page 700 to require pipelines to report

‘‘Total Interstate Operating Revenues.’’

On rehearing, SPOPS argues that by

requiring pipelines to report only

jurisdictional cost of service and

revenues on page 700, it will give

pipelines an enhanced opportunity to

mis-allocate jurisdictional costs and

revenues in favor of the pipelines.

The Commission never intended in

the Final Rule to have a pipeline report

its non-jurisdictional costs on page 700.

Rather, page 700 was to be a preliminary

screening tool that would permit a

shipper to compare proposed changes in

rates against the pipeline’s jurisdictional

cost of service.4 Page 700, as revised by

Order No. 620, results in the proper

matching of FERC jurisdictional costs

and revenues for shippers to use in

assessing rate proposals. Accordingly,

we take this opportunity to clarify Order

No. 620 that the cost-of-service and

revenue data reported on page 700 will

be the cost of service and revenues

related to FERC jurisdictional services.

In response to SPOPS’s concern that

the Final Rule will enable pipelines to

improperly allocate costs and revenues

in determining data to be reported on

page 700, we have adopted measures to

ensure consistency in how a pipeline

computes the information it reports on

page 700. If a pipeline makes major

changes in its application of the

Opinion No. 154–B methodology, it

must disclose on page 700 that it has

done so and recalculate the prior year’s

cost of service data to reflect the change

so that valid comparisons of data can be

made from one year to the next.5

Moreover, in Order No. 620, we

required pipelines to maintain

workpapers that fully support the data

reported on page 700 including but not

limited to the total cost-of-service

calculations and all of its associated

components. This includes allocations

of costs and revenues between carrier

and non-carrier, jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional facilities/services, and

between interstate and intrastate

services, assumptions made for the

Opinion No. 154–B calculations and

cross-references to underlying source

documents. In addition, Order No. 620

provides that the Commission or its staff

may request that a pipeline make its

workpapers available.6 Given these

safeguards, SPOPS’s claim of possible

manipulation of data reported on page

700 is speculative at best.

The Commission Orders

SPOPS’s request for rehearing of

Order No. 620 is denied.

By the Commission.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3965 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 179

[Docket No. 00F–0789]

Irradiation in the Production,

Processing, and Handling of Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

food additive regulations to expand the

conditions of safe use of X-radiation and

electron beam energy sources for the

treatment of prepackaged foods by

irradiation. This action is in response to

a petition filed by the National Center

for Food Safety and Technology, Illinois

Institute of Technology.

DATES: This rule is effective February

16, 2001. Submit written objections and

requests for a hearing by March 19,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to

the Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,

MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark A. Hepp, Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–215), Food

and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204, 202–418–3098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice

published in the Federal Register of

March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11320), FDA

announced that a food additive petition

(FAP 0M4711) had been filed by the

National Center for Food Safety and

Technology, Illinois Institute of

Technology, 6502 South Archer Rd.,

Summit-Argo, IL 60501–1933. The

petition proposed to amend the food

additive regulations in § 179.45

Packaging materials for use during the

irradiation of prepackaged foods (21

CFR 179.45) to expand the conditions of

safe use of X-radiation and electron

beam energy sources for the treatment of

prepackaged foods by irradiation.

FDA has evaluated the data in the

petition and other relevant material.

Based on this information, the agency

concludes that: (1) The proposed use of

the additives as sources of radiation for

irradiating of prepackaged foods is safe,

(2) the additives will achieve their

intended technical effect, and therefore,

(3) the regulations in § 179.45 should be

amended as set forth below.

In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR

171.1(h)), the petition and the

documents that FDA considered and

relied upon in reaching its decision to

approve the petition are available for

inspection at the Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition by appointment

with the information contact person

listed above. As provided in § 171.1(h),

the agency will delete from the

documents any materials that are not

available for public disclosure before

making the documents available for

inspection.

The agency has previously considered

the environmental effects of this rule as

announced in the notice of filing for

FAP 0M4711. No new information or

comments have been received that

would affect the agency’s previous

determination that there is no

significant impact on the human

environment and that an environmental

impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collection

of information. Therefore, clearance by

the Office of Management and Budget

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 is not required.

Any person who will be adversely

affected by this regulation may at any

time file with the Dockets Management

Branch (address above) written

objections by March 19, 2001. Each

objection shall be separately numbered,

and each numbered objection shall

specify with particularity the provisions

of the regulation to which objection is

made and the grounds for the objection.

Each numbered objection on which a

hearing is requested shall specifically so

state. Failure to request a hearing for

any particular objection shall constitute

a waiver of the right to a hearing on that

objection. Each numbered objection for

which a hearing is requested shall

include a detailed description and

analysis of the specific factual

information intended to be presented in

support of the objection in the event