![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 10, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 153)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48386-48391]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au04-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 388
[Docket Nos. RM02-4-002, PL02-1-002, RM03-6-001; Order No. 649]
Critical Energy Infrastructure Information
Issued August 3, 2004.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
issuing this final rule amending its regulations for gaining access to
critical energy infrastructure information (CEII). These changes are
being made based on comments filed in response to the February 13, 2004
notice seeking public comment on the effectiveness of the Commission's
CEII rules. The final rule
[[Page 48387]]
primarily eases the burden on agents of owners or operators of energy
facilities that are seeking CEII relating to the owner/operator's own
facility. The rule also simplifies federal agencies' access to CEII.
These changes will facilitate legitimate access to CEII without
increasing vulnerability of the energy infrastructure.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule will become effective September 9, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol C. Johnson, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-13, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell,
Joseph T. Kelliher, and Suedeen G. Kelly.
1. On February 13, 2004, the Commission issued a ``Notice
Soliciting Public Comment'' (the Notice) on its procedures for dealing
with critical energy infrastructure. 69 FR 8636 (Feb. 25, 2004). The
Commission's CEII procedures were established by Order Nos. 630 and
630-A. See Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 630,
68 FR 9857 (Mar. 3, 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,140 (2003); order
on reh'g, Order No. 630-A, 68 FR 46456 (Aug. 6, 2003), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ]
31,147 (2003). In Order Nos. 630-A and 643,\1\ the Commission
committed to solicit public comment after six months in order to
identify any potential problems with the Commission's regulations
regarding CEII. The Notice provided an opportunity for those with
experience under Order Nos. 630, 630-A, and 643 to provide feedback on
the CEII process. The Commission received comments on Order Nos. 630
and 630-A from the following five entities: the American Public Power
Association and Transmission Access Policy Study Group (APPA/TAPS), the
Hydropower Reform Coalition (HRC), the National Hydropower Association
(NHA), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and the United States
Department of Interior (DOI). No comments were received regarding Order
No. 643. In light of those comments and the Commission's own
experience, this order amends 18 CFR 388.113 and clarifies some other
points regarding CEII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amendments to Conform Regulations With Order No. 630
(Critical Energy Infrastructure Information Final Rule), Order No.
643, 68 FR 52089 (Sept. 2, 2003), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,149
(2003). Order No. 643 amended several Commission regulations to
eliminate requirements that filers provide outsiders with
information that qualifies as CEII under 18 CFR 388.113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
2. The Commission began its efforts with respect to CEII shortly
after the attacks of September 11, 2001. See Statement of Policy on
Treatment of Previously Public Documents, 66 FR 52917 (Oct. 18, 2001),
97 FERC ]
61,130 (2001). The Commission's initial step was to remove
from its public files and Internet page documents such as oversized
maps that were likely to contain detailed specifications of facilities
licensed or certified by the Commission, directing the public to
request such information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) process detailed in 5 U.S.C. 552 and in the Commission's
regulations at 18 CFR 388.108. In September 2002, the Commission issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding CEII, which proposed an
expanded definition of CEII to include detailed information about
proposed facilities as well as those already licensed or certificated
by the Commission. Notice of Rulemaking and Revised Statement of
Policy, 67 FR 57,994 (Sept. 13, 2002); FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,564
(2002). The Commission issued its final rule on CEII on February 21,
2003, defining CEII to include information about proposed facilities,
and to exclude information that simply identified the location of the
infrastructure. Order No. 630, 68 FR 9857, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,140. After receiving a request for rehearing on Order No. 630, the
Commission issued Order No. 630-A on July 23, 2003, denying the request
for rehearing, but amending the rule in several respects. Order No.
630-A, 68 FR 46456, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,147. Specifically, the
order on rehearing made several minor procedural changes and
clarifications, added a reference in the regulation regarding the
filing of non-Internet public (NIP) information, a term first described
in Order No. 630, and added the aforementioned commitment to review the
effectiveness of the new process after six months. The Notice issued on
February 13, 2004, facilitated the review contemplated in Order No.
630-A. This order addresses the comments received in response to the
Notice.
Summary and Discussion of Comments Received
A. Clarification and Guidance on What Constitutes CEII
3. The comments received fall primarily into the following two
broad categories: Concerns about inconsistencies and over-designation
of material as CEII, and concerns regarding the CEII clearance/approval
process. The HRC and NHA both indicate that there is a need for
additional guidance and clarity regarding which materials qualify for
CEII and NIP protection. HRC at p. 2; NHA at pp. 1-3. The HRC states
that submitters are over-designating information as CEII, and claims
that ``the breadth of information submitted as CEII has led to an
unnecessary withholding of information that does not meet the
regulatory definition.'' HRC at pp. 2-3. The HRC notes that permitting
some filers to over-designate information as CEII is unfair both to
those who claim CEII status prudently and those who are unable to
access information that should be publicly available. The HRC
encourages the Commission to assume responsibility for reviewing
information as it is submitted to determine whether it qualifies as
CEII, and classify it accordingly. HRC at p. 2. As now explained,
although such an approach might add consistency, the Commission does
not believe such an approach is necessary or practical.
4. Even before CEII existed, the Commission's rule at 18 CFR
388.112 permitted filers to designate information for non-public
treatment. Such documents received non-public treatment by default
until the Commission or a member of the public (through the filing of a
FOIA request) questioned whether or not the information deserved non-
public treatment. The Commission never found it necessary to review
claims for non-public treatment prior to affording documents such
status in order to save a requester the time and expense of filing a
FOIA request for the information. Indeed, the burden on the Commission
associated with previewing each such filing would be excessive.
5. Similarly, the Commission presently does not see a need to
review claims for CEII treatment before anyone has indicated an
interest in the document by filing a CEII request. CEII requests
usually present less burden and greater chance of success than FOIA
requests. There is no fee associated with a request for CEII. In
addition, CEII requests are granted more often than FOIA requests,
giving requesters access to information that would not be available to
them under the FOIA. Nevertheless, although it is not practical for
Commission staff to review all material filed as CEII, staff will
continue to take steps to have the status of information promptly
changed if they notice information has erroneously been filed as CEII.
Those steps include notice
[[Page 48388]]
and an opportunity for the submitter to defend the CEII designation,
and notice to the submitter prior to denying CEII status to the
document. For documents designated as CEII by the Commission, CEII
status can be changed even more quickly, without notice or an
opportunity for comment. The Commission encourages members of the
public to bring such matters to the attention of its staff, who are
committed to responding timely.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commission's staff responsible for processing CEII
requests and other matters are located within the Office of External
Affairs and the General and Administrative Law section of the Office
of the General Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. In addition, the Commission believes improving instructions to
filers and Commission staff regarding which information qualifies for
treatment as CEII is an effective way to combat the problem of
inconsistency in claims for CEII treatment. Therefore, the Commission
will be providing additional direction to filers on this subject, and
will begin this effort in the area of hydropower information because
that appears to be the area of the most uncertainty. Any guidance
developed will be disseminated to the appropriate entities through the
relevant industry associations, namely the National Hydropower
Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America by the effective date of this rule. In
addition, as suggested by the NHA, the Commission will designate
certain staff members in each program area who will be available to
answer specific questions filers may have regarding appropriate
designation of certain information. This contact information will be
made available on the Commission's Web site within the same timeframe.
7. The HRC also questions whether the Commission's definition of
CEII is too broad. The Commission defines CEII as ``information about
proposed or existing critical infrastructure that (i) Relates to the
production, generation, transportation, transmission, or distribution
of energy; (ii) Could be useful to a person in planning an attack of
critical infrastructure; (iii) Is exempt from mandatory disclosure
under the [FOIA]; and (iv) Does not simply give the location of the
critical infrastructure.'' 18 CFR 388.113(c)(1). The HRC is concerned
that parts two and four of the definition are too broad. HRC at p. 5.
As an initial matter, the Commission notes that its definition of CEII
is limited to information that is exempt from disclosure under the
FOIA, and the remaining elements of the definition only serve to create
a subset of FOIA-exempt information that may be released to requesters
who evidence a need for such information. While the Commission agrees
that part two of the definition is fairly subjective, the requirement
that the information fall within a FOIA exemption serves to limit its
applicability appropriately. As discussed above, the Commission will
provide additional guidance that will help define elements two and four
of the definition.
8. The HRC also raises the issue of the Commission's reliance on
FOIA Exemption 7 to protect CEII, stating ``FERC's current
interpretation of FOIA's exemptions is disturbingly broad particularly
with respect to information compiled for law enforcement purposes.''
HRC at p. 3. The HRC notes that Exemption 7 has traditionally been used
to protect information relating to criminal investigations, and states
that FERC's use of Exemption 7 to protect CEII ``is neither legally
defensible nor good public policy.'' HRC at p. 4. The Commission
disagrees. While it is true that Exemption 7 has most often been
applied in the context of criminal investigations, it is not limited to
that context. Courts have found that both the Federal Communication
Commission's authority to revoke or deny licenses and the Federal Trade
Commission's authority over advertising practices were law enforcement
activities. See Kay v. FCC, 867 F. Supp. 11, 16-18 (D.DC 1994);
Ehringhaus v. FTC, 525 F. Supp. 21, 22-23 (D.DC 1980). More recently,
courts have found that the law enforcement threshold was met with
respect to Bureau of Reclamation dam inundation maps used to develop
emergency actions plans. See Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States
Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1316 (D. Utah 2003). This
is very similar to information protected by the Commission in the
hydropower area. The Commission continues to believe that such
information may appropriately be protected under Exemption 7(F).
9. The HRC indicates particular concern regarding project boundary
maps. In Order No. 630, the Commission specified that ``maps of
projects (including location of project works with respect to water
bodies, permanent monuments, or other structures that can be noted on
the map and recognized in the field) such as those found in Exhibit G''
are considered to be CEII. 68 FR at 9862, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31, 140
at p 32. In light of the concerns raised by the HRC regarding project
boundary maps, the Commission has revisited this issue, and determined
that such information should not be treated as CEII. The Commission
hereby directs that in the future such maps generally should not be
treated as CEII or submitted with requests for CEII treatment, but
should instead be submitted as NIP information in accordance with 18
CFR 388.112 and instructions from the Office of the Secretary.
B. Handling CEII Requests
10. The commenters raise several issues regarding the filing and
processing of CEII requests. The HRC contends that it is unnecessarily
burdensome to require individual members of an organization to file
separate requests and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). See HRC at pp.
7-8. The Commission disagrees. When it first adopted the CEII request
rules, the Commission chose not to clear entire entities, deciding
instead to clear each individual requesting access. As the Commission
noted in Order No. 630, ``the more people who have access to
information, the greater likelihood that it may find its way into the
wrong hands.'' Order No. 630, 68 FR at p. 9865, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,140 at p 48. The Commission believes that the current approach is
necessary to effectively limit the number of people getting access to
CEII. Moreover, the burden associated with filing a CEII request is
minimal. For the ease of requesters, the Commission has posted a form
on its Web site that requesters may use to file a request, which
simplifies the request process. See http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to/
file-ceii.asp. 
The average request takes approximately
five minutes to complete. To read and sign a non-disclosure agreement
requires about the same amount of time. Under the circumstances, the
Commission believes that the current policy of requiring each requester
to file separately continues to be the best way to control access to CEII,
and does not pose an undue burden on requesters.
11. While noting that for the most part their members have not had
problems gaining access to CEII, the HRC suggests that the Commission
consider automatically allowing all parties in a proceeding access to
the same information in the proceeding, including CEII. HRC at p. 8.
The Commission is reluctant to automatically grant parties access to
CEII because it may cause people to intervene solely to receive CEII.
Under the Commission's rules, ``[i]f no answer in opposition to a
timely motion to intervene is filed within 15 days after the motion to
intervene is filed, the movant becomes a party at the end of the 15 day
period.'' 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1). Therefore, many motions
[[Page 48389]]
to intervene are granted with no evaluation of the motion. The
Commission is not comfortable granting CEII access without an
affirmative analysis of the requester and his or her need for the
information, so it will not automatically grant interveners access to
CEII. Alternatively, the HRC urges the Commission to adopt a lower
threshold for parties to a proceeding where others in the proceeding
have access to CEII. In effect, this already happens. Under the
Commission's regulations, someone has a right to participate in a
Commission proceeding if such right is granted by law, if they have or
represent an interest which may be directly affected by the proceeding,
or if their participation is in the public interest. 18 CFR
388.214(b)(2). Therefore, if a CEII requester puts forth the same
information required in a motion to intervene, that same information
would most likely suffice to show that he is a legitimate requester
with a need for the information requested, making it very likely his
request for CEII would be granted.
12. While the HRC is concerned that the Commission's rules are too
burdensome on requesters, SCE is concerned that the Commission's
threshold for granting requests for CEII is too low. SCE urges the
Commission to ``provide stricter limitations on the use of the [CEII]
and require a greater showing of legitimate need for the CEII requested
in order to ensure its confidentiality is maintained.'' SCE at p. 2.
SCE believes that absent a showing of a valid need and legitimate use
of the information, little protection is afforded by the requester's
willingness to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Id. The Commission has
found that CEII such as Form Nos. 715 and 567 are heavily requested by
consultants who use the information to advise clients, often not with
respect to a particular docketed Commission proceeding. The Commission
believes that it is not always necessary for requesters to identify a
particular Commission matter or even a particular client in order to
qualify as a legitimate requester, especially where the Commission has
been able to verify that the individual or firm provides legitimate
consulting services. These consultants often provide a valuable service
by giving market participants information necessary to make business
decisions regarding expansion of the infrastructure, ultimately making
it less vulnerable to attack. The Commission is unwilling to restrict
access to information necessary to make such critical decisions.
13. The HRC also voices concern with the notice and comment process
applicable to requests for information that has been submitted to the
Commission with a request for CEII treatment, stating that ``FERC has
not outlined a compelling reason to provide licensees with the
opportunity [to]
comment on the release of CEII to a requestor.'' HRC
at p. 6. The notice and comment process existed previous to September
11, 2001, with respect to information that was submitted to the
Commission with a request for non-public treatment. The prior version
of 18 CFR 388.112(d) stated that ``[w]hen a FOIA requester seeks a
document for which privilege is claimed, the Commission official who
will decide whether to make the document public will notify the person
who submitted the document and give the person an opportunity (at least
five days) in which to comment in writing on the request.'' This
provision has its foundations in Executive Order No. 12600, which
applies specifically to confidential commercial information
traditionally protected by FOIA Exemption 4. For more than fifteen
years, the Commission has extended the procedural safeguards found in
E.O. 12600 to any information submitted with a request for privileged
treatment, and more recently in Order No. 630, the Commission extended
those safeguards to information submitted with a request that it be
treated as CEII. The executive order aside, the Commission believes
there are benefits to affording the submitter of the information an
opportunity to comment on the request. First, this gives the submitter
of the information an opportunity to explain in more detail which
exemption applies to protect the information and the potential harm
that could result from disclosure of the information. Second, in many
instances the submitter is familiar with the requester, and can provide
information useful to the Commission in verifying the identity of the
requester, providing a better foundation for the CEII Coordinator's
decision. Third, if notice and comment were only afforded where the
submitter claimed that the information was confidential commercial
information, it would give companies incentives to make such claims
where they might otherwise not be made.
14. The HRC also claims that providing notice and an opportunity
for submitters to comment on release ``could undermine a part[y's]
negotiating position in a settlement proceeding.'' HRC at p. 6. The HRC
goes on to state that ``[t]he CEII coordinator should be vested with
the authority to determine when information qualifies as CEII and
whether a requestor has demonstrated a need for the information.'' Id.
The HRC appears to misunderstand the purpose of providing notice and an
opportunity to comment. The submitter does not make the decision
regarding whether the information is CEII or whether to release the
information to the requester; the submitter's comments only inform the
CEII Coordinator's decision. There have been numerous instances where
the CEII Coordinator has released CEII despite the submitter's
opposition to such a release. The Commission continues to find that the
benefits of maintaining the notice and comment process outweighs the
inconvenience to the requesters and concludes that there is little
danger of the process undermining settlement proceedings.
15. Although generally finding that the Commission responds
``almost immediately'' to CEII requests, the HRC has indicated concern
with the time it takes to process CEII requests, especially in matters
with quick turnaround times, specifically referencing the Commission's
integrated licensing process (ILP). HRC at p. 7. The Commission agrees
that HRC has raised a legitimate concern given that the ILP has defined
deadlines for all participants, including the Commission, throughout
the process. However, the majority of the documents filed as part of
the licensing process typically are not CEII, so the problem will not
be widespread. Given the Commission's contemporaneous decision to no
longer consider Exhibit G project boundary maps as CEII, the most
likely information to be filed in the ILP as CEII is Exhibit F (details
of project facilities),\3\ which will be part of the draft license
application, if prepared, and the final license application filed with
the Commission. The comment deadlines for these two steps are 90 days
and 120 days respectively. Given these deadlines, requesters should
have little trouble getting timely access to the information. In other
instances with shorter timeframes, the Commission will strive to
respond as quickly as possible. Requesters should highlight short
deadlines so staff can expedite the request if possible. Requesters
also have the option of seeking the information directly from the
applicant, and the Commission will encourage applicants
[[Page 48390]]
to negotiate with requesters to provide CEII directly to them wherever
possible. In fact, the Commission already encourages such cooperation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In Order No. 630, the Commission listed general design
drawings such as those found in Exhibit F as an example of CEII
commonly found in hydropower filings. 68 FR at p. 9862; FERC Stats.
& Regs. ]
31,147 at p 32.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The DOI has asked the Commission to loosen some of the
requirements on federal agency requesters. Specifically, the DOI urges
that ``[f]ederal agencies should be able to identify themselves one
time in each proceeding, and be granted complete access to the docket
from then on.'' DOI at p. 2. The Commission has reconsidered the
position of federal agency requesters and agrees that once an agency
has been granted access to CEII in a particular docket, it is entitled
to receive subsequent CEII in that docket. However, the Commission will
not assume an affirmative duty to transmit such information absent a
subsequent request from the agency. Such subsequent request may be as
informal as a phone call or e-mail to a staff contact requesting
additional CEII in the docket. The burden must remain on the requesting
agency to voice such requests; otherwise the burden on Commission staff
to keep track of such ongoing requests would be too great.
17. The NHA has requested clarification of the owner/operator
request process, and has suggested that the Commission designate a
specific person for owner/operators to contact to obtain CEII on their
own projects. NHA at 3. Currently, 18 CFR 388.113(d)(1) provides that
``[a]n owner/operator of a facility, including employees and officers
of the owner/operator, may obtain CEII relating to its own facility
directly from Commission staff without going through the procedures
outlined in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.'' In most instances, the
owner/operator representative has a contact on Commission staff and the
CEII request is sent directly to that staff person. In cases where an
owner/operator does not have a relationship with a staff person from
the Office of Energy Projects, the request may be sent to the General
and Administrative Law Section of the Commission's Office of the
General Counsel, directed to the attention of Carol Johnson
carol.johnson@ferc.gov). The telephone number for General and
Administrative Law is 202-502-6457 and the facsimile number is 202-208-
0056.
18. The NHA has also requested that the Commission alter its policy
that agents of an owner/operator may not file CEII requests. The
current regulation requires that agents or other non-employee
representatives of owner/operators obtain CEII directly from the owner/
operator. In several instances this has resulted in an unwieldy
process. The Commission has reconsidered its approach with respect to
agents of owner/operators and has decided to permit the agents to have
the same access as the owner/operator as long as they present written
authorization from the owner/operator for such access. Therefore, the
Commission is amending Sec. 388.113(d)(1) to include agents of owner/
operators, deleting Sec. 388.113(d)(2), and re-designating Sec.
388.113(d)(3) as 388.113(d)(2).
19. SCE requests that the Commission require that consultants agree
to return or destroy CEII when the proceeding is finished, or within
two years of receipt, arguing that Form No. 715 data does not
necessarily become stale. SCE at pp. 2-3. SCE has advocated this
approach in several of its responses to Form No. 715 notice and comment
letters. The Commission has considered the advantages and disadvantages
of placing time limits on a recipient's use of CEII. The advantage is
that it limits the amount of time such information is vulnerable to
disclosure. A primary disadvantage of such an approach is that it would
require monitoring and follow up, which would be quite a large
administrative task when one considers the volume of CEII requests,
which are averaging over 200 requests per year thus far. Another
problem is that some of the recipients use the CEII to develop some
sort of product or database. Once the time limit expires, they would
not only need to return the original information, they would have to
dismantle the product or database that utilized the information. That
could be an expensive proposition, and discourage recipients from
undertaking the analysis in the first place. These analyses are often
performed to assist market participants in making critical decisions
about where to invest in new infrastructure. The Commission is
reluctant to take steps that could discourage such analyses. Finally,
the Commission does believe that the sensitivity of much of the
information will diminish over time. For these reasons, the Commission
declines to routinely place time limits on a recipient's access to
CEII, but would consider doing so in a unique case where a compelling
need could be shown.
C. Follow Up
20. The APPA/TAPS cautions the Commission not to presume too much
given the absence of complaints to date, noting that there have not
been many controversial rate requests and no significant merger
applications filed since the CEII rules took effect. APPA/TAPS at p. 2.
The APPA/TAPS encourages the Commission to re-evaluate the
effectiveness of the rules again in another year. Id. at p. 3. The HRC
also urges the Commission to continue to evaluate the CEII rules
``using measures of success in addition to evaluating comments and
input from the public.'' HRC at p. 3. The Commission will continue to
monitor and review the success of the CEII program. It will continue to
be alert to situations where a party's ability to effectively
participate in a proceeding may be impacted by the rules. In addition,
the Commission will re-examine the effectiveness of the rules again
within one year. That evaluation will take into account the potential
threats and what level of protection is required given the current
world situation.
Information Collection Statement
21. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) regulations
require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements
imposed by agency rule. 5 CFR 1320.12 (2004). This final rule does not
impose any additional information collection requirements. Therefore,
the information collection regulations do not apply to this final rule.
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.\4\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusions are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended. 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). This
rule is procedural in nature and therefore falls under this exception;
consequently, no environmental consideration is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ]
30,783 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \5\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such analyses if a rule would
not have such an effect. The
[[Page 48391]]
Commission certifies that this proposed rule, if finalized, would not
have such an impact on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Availability
24. 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.
25. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available in the Commission's document management system, 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.
26. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 (e-mail at
FERCOnlineSupport@FERC.gov), or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-
8371, TTY 202-502-8659 (e-mail at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov).
Effective Date
27. These regulations are effective September 9, 2004. The
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review of Final
Rules do not apply to this Final Rule, because the rule concerns agency
procedure and practice and will not substantially affect the rights of
non-agency parties.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 388
Confidential business information, Freedom of information.
By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
? In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 388,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 388--INFORMATION AND REQUESTS
? 1. The authority citation for part 388 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301-305, 551, 552 (as amended), 553-557; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
? 2. In Sec. 388.113, paragraph (d)(1) is revised, paragraph (d)(2) is
removed, and (d)(3) is redesignated as (d)(2), to read as follows:
Sec. 388.113 Accessing critical energy infrastructure information.
* * * * *
(d) Optional procedures for requesting critical energy
infrastructure information. (1) An owner/operator of a facility,
including employees and officers of the owner/operator, may obtain CEII
relating to its own facility directly from Commission staff without
going through the procedures outlined in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. Non-employee agents of an owner/operator of such facility may
obtain CEII relating to the owner/operator's facility in the same
manner as owner/operators as long as they present written authorization
from the owner/operator to obtain such information.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-18189 Filed 8-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P