Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

Six comment letters were received,

including letters from the National

Futures Association; the Futures

Industry Association; the CBOE Futures

Exchange; the Chicago Board of Trade;

the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and

Kansas City Board of Trade writing

jointly; and Mr. Dennis Gartman. The

comments received were studied

carefully and are under advisement by

the Commission. However, the

Commission has yet to take final action

on the proposed amendments.

Until such time as the definition of

‘‘public director’’ is finalized, the

operational provisions of the Acceptable

Practices, which are dependent on the

definition, cannot be properly applied

by DCMs or enforced by the

Commission. Recognizing this fact, and

in order to carefully consider its next

steps, the Commission has determined

to stay the Acceptable Practices for Core

Principle 15 adopted on January 31,

2007. Accordingly, the two-year

compliance period is also stayed.

Related Matters

A. Cost-Benefit Analysis

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

Section 15(a) of the Act requires the

Commission to consider the costs and

benefits of its actions in advance of

issuing any new regulation or order.2

More specifically, Section 15(a) states

that the costs and benefits of a proposed

rule or order shall be evaluated with

regard to five broad areas of market and

public concern: (1) Protection of market

participants and the public; (2)

efficiency, competitiveness, and

financial integrity of futures markets; (3)

price discovery; (4) sound risk

management practices; and (5) other

public interest considerations. In

conducting its analysis, the Commission

may give greater weight to any one of

the five enumerated areas of market and

public concern and determine,

notwithstanding potential costs, that the

implementation of a particular rule or

order is necessary or appropriate to

protect the public’s interest or to

effectuate or accomplish any of the

provisions or purposes of the Act.3

On February 14, 2007, the

Commission published its first

Acceptable Practices for Core Principle

15. The four-part Acceptable Practices,

described above, were designed to

facilitate the reduction of conflicts of

interest in DCMs’ decision making

processes.4 Although the Acceptable

Practices became effective on March 16,

2007, the Commission established a

phase-in period for DCMs to implement

the Acceptable Practices or to otherwise

come into full compliance with Core

Principle 15. The phase-in period

extended well beyond the date of

effectiveness and consisted of the lesser

of two years or two regularly scheduled

board elections.

On March 26, 2007, the Commission

published proposed amendments to one

element of the new Acceptable

Practices—the definition of ‘‘public

director.’’ To date, the Commission has

yet to act upon the proposed

amendments. The Commission

recognizes that the operational

provisions of Acceptable Practices

cannot be properly applied by DCMs

until the definition of ‘‘public director’’

is resolved. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined, for the

purpose of regulatory clarity, to stay the

Acceptable Practices for Core Principle

15 and thereby lift any potential

compliance costs associated with those

Acceptable Practices.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The stay of the effective date of the

Acceptable Practices for Core Principle

15 reduces the information collection

burden to levels previously approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). The OMB control number for

this collection is 3038–0052. The

Commission has submitted the required

Paperwork Reduction Act Change

Worksheet (OMB–83C) to OMB to

reflect the change.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires federal

agencies, in promulgating rules, to

consider the impact of those rules on

small entities. The stay of the effective

date for the Acceptable Practices for

Core Principle 15 affects DCMs. The

Commission has previously determined

that DCMs are not small entities for

purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act.5 Accordingly, the acting Chairman,

on behalf of the Commission, hereby

certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that

the stay of the Acceptable Practices will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Therefore, paragraph (b) of Core

Principle 15 in Appendix B to 17 CFR

part 38 is stayed indefinitely.

2 7 U.S.C. 19(a).

3 Fishermen’s Dock Co-op., Inc. v. Brown, 75 F.3d

164 (4th Cir. 1996); Center for Auto Safety v. Peck,

751 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency has

discretion to weigh factors in undertaking costsbenefits analyses).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

4 72 FR 6936 (February 14, 2007).

5 See Policy Statement and Establishment of

Definitions of ‘‘Small Entities’’ for Purposes of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 47 FR 18618, 18619

(Apr. 30, 1982).

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

65659

Issued in Washington, DC, on November

16, 2007, by the Commission.

David Stawick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E7–22878 Filed 11–21–07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 375 and 385

[Docket No. RM07–16–000; Order No. 703]

Filing Via the Internet

Issued November 15, 2007.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising

its regulations to provide that all

documents will be eligible for filing by

means of the Commission’s eFiling

system, with exceptions to be posted by

the Secretary of the Commission on the

Commissions Web site.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will

become effective December 24, 2007.

Changes made by this rule to the

Commission’s eFiling system will be

implemented at a later date, to be

announced by the Secretary of the

Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wilbur Miller, Office of General

Counsel, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8953.

wilbur.miller@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,

Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer,

Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

I. Background

1. On July 23, 2007, the Commission

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR) seeking comments on proposed

revisions to its regulations that will

enable the implementation of the next

version of its system for filing

documents via the Internet, eFiling 7.0.

Filing Via the Internet, 72 FR 42330

(July 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 32,621 (2007). The NOPR proposed to

allow the option of filing all documents

in Commission proceedings through the

eFiling interface except for specified

exceptions. The NOPR also sought

comments on the possibility of shifting

its deadline for filings through the

eFiling system from close of business to

midnight, and of utilizing online forms

to allow ‘‘documentless’’ interventions

in all filings and quick comments in P

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

65660

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

(Hydropower Project), PF (Pre-Filing

NEPA activities for proposed gas

pipelines), and CP (Certificates for

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines)

proceedings. Finally, the NOPR asked

for input on a number of technical

issues that will be covered in the

instructions for eFiling that will be

issued by the Secretary of the

Commission. These issues also were the

subject of a technical conference that

took place on August 22, 2007.

2. This Final Rule adopts the NOPR’s

proposal to amend the Commission’s

regulations 1 to provide that all

documents filed with the Commission

may be submitted through the eFiling

interface except for documents specified

by the Secretary. This reverses the

existing presumption, as the current

regulations allow eFiling only of

documents specified by the Secretary.

The changes we are implementing in

this Final Rule mean that categories

such as oversized documents and most

confidential documents will be accepted

via eFiling. At this time, the principal

exceptions, as noted in the NOPR, will

be tariffs, tariff revisions and rate

change applications; some forms; 2 and

documents that are subject to protective

orders. As stated in the NOPR, for the

time being, the Secretary’s instructions

will specify that submitters file paper

copies of oversized and some other

documents 3 in addition to the

electronic documents.

3. This rulemaking will become

effective 30 days after publication in the

Federal Register, but implementation of

eFiling 7.0 will occur at a later date. The

Secretary will announce the

implementation of the upgrade in

advance and will also at that time post

filing instructions, as discussed below.

4. This Final Rule implements the

proposals, discussed in the NOPR, to

institute online forms that would permit

optional ‘‘documentless’’ intervention

in all proceedings and ‘‘quick

comments’’ in P (Hydropower Project),

PF (Pre-Filing NEPA activities for

proposed gas pipelines), and CP

(Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas

Pipelines) proceedings. It should be

noted that the quick comment and

documentless intervention features will

1 Rule 2003(c) of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2003(c).

2 The following will continue to be submitted

through eForms: FERC Form No.1, FERC Form No.

2, FERC Form No. 2–A, FERC Form No. 3–Q, FERC

Form No. 6, FERC Form No. 6–Q, Form 60, Form

714, and Electric Quarterly Reports. FERC Form 1–

F is currently not included in eForms, so it may be

efiled. Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT)

filings may also be efiled.

3 A list of examples of documents for which the

Commission will require paper copies is contained

in the Appendix to the NOPR.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

not require revisions to the

Commission’s regulations. We are not at

this time implementing the proposal to

move the filing deadline to midnight.

5. Prior to the release of eFiling 7.0,

the Secretary will issue instructions

specifying formats and other technical

parameters, as well as instances in

which paper copies will be required. As

noted in the NOPR, the Commission has

already issued instructions specifying

acceptable file formats for filings

submitted on CD–ROM, DVD and other

electronic media. These can be found at

http://www.ferc.gov/help/submissionguide/electronic-media.asp. In addition,

in some cases Commission staff has

issued instructions applying to specific

types of filings. Where there are no

specifications for a particular type of

filing, users must follow the Secretary’s

instructions. The Commission received

useful input on formatting issues both

in the comments on the NOPR and in

the technical conference. Users of

eFiling should bear in mind that

changes will inevitably take place as

staff implements improvements and

technology changes. Staff also receives

feedback from users on an informal

basis, which it uses to continue

improving the system.

6. At this time, the eFiling system will

accept documents in their native

formats. This will include both text or

word processing documents, and other

more specialized documents such as

spreadsheets and maps. It will also

accept text documents in searchable

formats, including scanned documents

that have been saved in searchable form.

As noted above, the Secretary has issued

a list of acceptable formats for CD–ROM,

DVD and other electronic media,

available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/

submission-guide/electronic-media.asp.

This same list will serve as the list of

acceptable formats for eFiling 7.0.

Submitters will be able to choose a

suitable format from that list unless they

are instructed otherwise in specific

instances by regulation or by direction

from Commission staff. Audio and video

files will be accepted only in waveform

audio format (.wav) for audio content

and either audio-video interleave (.avi)

or quicktime (.mov) files for video

content, except where submitters are

specifically instructed otherwise.

7. The NOPR requested comments on

the possibility of discontinuing the

practice of posting PDF versions of

filings in eLibrary that are created by

Commission staff. For the time being,

we will continue this practice. As

discussed in the NOPR, however, users

should note that PDF conversions are

not always accurate or complete and

should not be considered authoritative.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Some documents are not susceptible to

conversion at all. The PDF versions will

be provided on a ‘‘best efforts’’ basis, so

in some cases no PDF version may

appear in eLibrary, or there may only be

a placeholder file indicating that a PDF

version could not be generated.

8. Finally, the NOPR requested

comments on whether the Secretary

should require documents created

electronically by the filer using word

processing software be filed in native

applications or print-to-PDF format

rather than an unsearchable, scanned

format. The Secretary’s instructions will

adopt this proposal. Scanned, nonsearchable formats may be used only for

documents that cannot, as a practical

matter, be put into searchable formats.

II. Discussion

A. Expansion of eFiling

9. As stated above, upon

implementation of eFiling 7.0 the

Commission will accept the electronic

filing of all documents through the

eFiling interface except for tariff filings,

some forms 4 and documents submitted

under protective orders. The comments

received by the Commission on the

expansion of eFiling were uniformly

favorable. Some commenters urged us to

continue to expand the range of

submissions acceptable through eFiling.

In some cases, commenters 5 urged us to

accept tariff filings through the eFiling

gateway, either on a permanent basis or

on a temporary basis pending the

institution of eTariff, which is the

subject of a separate proceeding.6

10. We intend, as far as practicable, to

continue decreasing our reliance on

paper documents and to continue to

upgrade eFiling capabilities in

furtherance of the Commission’s

responsibilities under the Government

Paperwork Elimination Act.7 At this

time, however, the Commission will not

accept tariff filings through the eFiling

system. The eTariff rulemaking will

remain the forum for addressing the

electronic submission of tariff filings

with tariff material. However, eFiling

may be used to file material in tariff

proceedings provided the filing does not

contain tariff material. Examples

include testimony filed as part of the

hearing, Schedules G–1 through G–6,8

and updated statements such as

4 See Note 2 infra.

5 Edison Electric Institute (EEI), pp. 4–6; Arizona

Public Service Company (APSC), p. 3; Nevada

Power Company & Sierra Pacific Power Company

(Nevada/Sierra), p. 3.

6 Electronic Tariff Filings, Docket No. RM01–5–

000, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 35,551 (2005).

7 Pub. L. No. 105–277, § 1704, 112 Stat. 2681,

2681–750 (1998).

8 18 CFR 154.313(j)(2) (2007).

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

required by section 154.311 of the

Commission’s regulations.9 Also,

Natural Gas Act Section 7 certificate

filings with pro forma tariff sheets may

be filed under this version of eFiling

7.0.10

11. Some commenters 11 expressed

caution about the submission of

confidential documents, including a

desire for more detail about that

function. There was some concern about

the ability to alter a document’s security

designation after it is filed.12 Some

commenters also requested clarification

on the procedures for filing protected

documents,13 including the procedures

for documents submitted together with

requests for protective orders.14

12. The anticipated procedure for the

submission of confidential documents is

as follows: When a user accesses the

File Upload screen, the user will see

tabs for three submission categories:

Public, CEII and Privileged. The files

uploaded to each of these tabs will

automatically receive an accession

number and be marked as Public, CEII

or Privileged. The entire eFiling session

will be secured so the documents during

transmission will be encrypted. The

following system checks will be

performed during the eFiling process:

• The file size will be checked to

ensure the size is not greater than 50MB.

• The file format will be checked to

ensure it is a format that FERC can

support. The acceptable file format list

can be found at the following location:

http://www.ferc.gov/help/submissionguide/electronic-media.asp.

• Files will be checked for viruses.

• The file name will be checked to

ensure it is less than 60 characters

including the period, spaces, and file

extension (.doc, .xls, .pps, etc.).

If for any reason, the files that have

been uploaded fail to pass any one of

the checks above, a message will be

displayed identifying the issue and the

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

9 18 CFR 154.311 (2007).

10 Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

(INGAA), Appendix A, pp. 2 and 3, requests

clarification of which part of certificate and tariff

filings would be filed utilizing eFiling 7.0, and

which part would be filed under the eTariff

procedures. The eTariff requirements are not

complete, thus it is premature to speculate as to

what the electronic filing process for filings with

tariffs will be. At this time, however, tariff filings

cannot be split between electronic and paper

filings. No part of a tariff filing will be accepted

through eFiling 7.0.

11 EEI, pp. 6–7; Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.

and Enbridge, Inc. (Enbridge), pp. 3–5; Midwest

Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

(MISO), pp. 2–3; Southern California Edison

Company (SoCal), pp. 2–3; Williston Basin

Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), p. 6.

12 American Rivers, pp. 1–2.

13 INGAA, p. 3; MISO, pp. 2–3; Williston Basin,

pp. 6–7.

14 EEI, pp. 6–7.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

user will not be permitted to proceed

with the filing process.

13. It will not be possible for a user,

through eFiling, to change the

designation of a file as public,

privileged, or CEII after submission of

the document. This will only be

possible before submission, in case the

user changes her mind or finds a

mistake. Any subsequent redesignation

request will have to be made by calling

FERC Online Support or the eFiling

Help Line. Users should continue to

follow the Commission’s regulations

governing submission of confidential

documents.15 If a user needs to submit

both a redacted and a privileged form of

a document, the latter should be

submitted as privileged and the former

as public.

14. In some instances, a document

may contain portions that are privileged

and other portions that constitute CEII.

In such an instance, the CEII portions

would be filed as CEII and the

privileged portions would be filed

separately and designated as privileged.

If a portion of a document was both

privileged and CEII, it would be filed as

privileged because that is the higher

security classification.

15. Some parties request the ability to

file privileged or CEII material in paperonly format. The Commission notes that

this Final Rule only provides filers the

option to use eFiling to make filings

with the Commission. Filers who do not

wish to use eFiling need not do so. To

the extent that these commenters are

requesting that the Commission permit

filers to split their filings into an

electronic component and a paper

component, the Commission rejects this

request. The Commission does not want

to assume the responsibility of finding

the paper and electronic components of

a single filing and reassembling those

components for uploading into eLibrary

or internal distribution and analysis.

Dual format filings create significant

potential for errors and delays.16

16. To clarify, materials subject to

protective orders should not be eFiled

because the Secretary’s office does not

put protected material into eLibrary, as

opposed to material filed pursuant to

Section 388.112 of the Commission’s

regulations. The same restriction applies

to confidential materials filed with a

request for a protective order.

B. Paper Copies

17. The NOPR proposed to continue

to require paper copies of filings

15 18 CFR 388.112.

16 The Commission notes that filers can make

separate, free-standing, paper-only and electronic

only filings in the same proceeding.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

65661

submitted electronically through eFiling

7.0, for instance, oversized documents

such as maps, diagrams and drawings.

The NOPR explained that due to the

size of standard monitors and other

hardware and software limitations, it

was impractical at this time for the

Commission to review certain

documents in electronic form. The

NOPR also raised the possibility of

requiring paper copies for documents

over a certain length, such as 500 pages.

Some commenters requested that

‘‘oversized documents’’ or ‘‘large

documents’’ be defined as those

documents larger than 8.5″ x 11″,17 8.5″

x 14″,18 or 8.5″ x 17″.19 Others asked for

further clarifications, such as whether

the paper requirement applies only to

the oversized portions of documents

that also have standard dimensions.20

Commenters were not in favor of

requiring paper copies of long

documents.21

18. The Secretary’s instructions will

require paper copies in a specified

number of documents larger than 11″ ×

17″. This is a standard dimension for

‘‘oversized’’ documents. If a document

contains both oversized and standard

dimensions, only the former need be

filed on paper. Paper copies of long

documents, i.e., documents longer than

a specified number of pages, will not be

required. Further specifics will be

contained in the instructions to be

issued by the Secretary. Over time, as

we upgrade our capabilities, we expect

to be able to reduce the necessity of

filing paper copies.22

19. In response to the comments about

the timing of submission of paper

copies, we wish to state clearly the roles

played by the paper and electronic

copies. The revisions made in this Final

Rule, in 18 CFR 385.2003(c)(1), will

provide that ‘‘filing via the Internet is in

lieu of other methods of filing.’’ Thus,

the electronic copy will be the ‘‘filed’’

copy. This will be the copy to which the

Commission looks for matters such as

determining timeliness. Paper copies

will be required in some instances

because they are currently necessary for

FERC staff to carry out its functions. The

Secretary’s instructions will specify the

17 Williston Basin, p. 7.

18 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), p. 4.

19 INGAA, p. 5.

20 MISO, p. 3. PG&E, p. 3, asked for clarification

of the timeframe and dimensions, while INGAA,

pp. 4–5, asked that the paper copies be due after

an accession number is assigned. SoCal, pp. 3–4,

urged that eFiling not be required where paper

copies are submitted. This will necessarily be the

case, because the Commission is not at this time

making eFiling mandatory.

21 INGAA, pp. 5–6; SoCal, p. 3; Nevada/Sierra, p.

5; PG&E, pp. 4–5; Williston Basin, pp. 7–8.

22 See comments of Nevada/Sierra, p. 4.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

65662

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

time by which the paper copies must be

submitted.

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

C. File Formats

20. The NOPR raised the possibility of

discontinuing our practice of creating

PDF versions of documents in

eLibrary.23 In conjunction with this

possibility, the NOPR requested

comments on several alternative

requirements for file formats of

documents submitted through eFiling.

The three alternatives noted were:

Requiring that all word processing

filings be made in open file formats,

such as text, html, rtf, or possibly PDF;

permitting filings in open file formats as

well as in certain Microsoft Office

formats; and requiring that documents

created with proprietary software be

filed in the proprietary software along

with an open source format. The NOPR

also discussed the possibility of

prohibiting the practice of filing nonsearchable, scanned versions of

documents created in native formats.

21. Generally speaking, commenters

opposed any requirement that

documents be filed in more than one

format.24 Some commenters favored

retention of FERC-created PDFs 25 or

otherwise expressed a preference for

some sort of open file format to

maximize accessibility of documents to

the public.26 Preferences between native

and converted formats varied. Some

commenters favored prohibiting the

practice of scanning documents and

filing them in non-searchable formats.27

Some noted that data-oriented

documents such as spreadsheets lose

much of their utility if not filed in their

native formats.28 Others expressed a

preference for filing scanned, nonsearchable documents, in PDF format, in

some cases out of concern that the

documents could be manipulated.29

22. Based on the comments received,

we will continue to create PDF versions

of submitted documents in eLibrary on

23 Some commenters referred to FERC-created

Text documents as well as PDF documents. Users

should note that FERC creates Text versions only

of Commission issuances. It does not create such

versions of documents submitted through eFiling.

24 American Gas Association (AGA), p. 1 (word

processing documents); EEI, pp. 7–8; FirstEnergy

Companies (FirstEnergy), pp. 6–7; Nevada/Sierra,

pp. 6–7; SoCal, p. 4; Williston Basin, pp. 8–9;

INGAA, p. 8; Enbridge, pp. 7–8.

25 AGA, pp. 5–6; EEI, pp. 7–9; Bonneville Power

Administration (Bonneville), p. 2; PG&E, pp. 5–6;

American Rivers, pp. 2–3; U.S. Department of the

Interior (Interior), p. 1; INGAA, p. 7; Nevada/Sierra,

p. 6.

26 American Rivers, pp. 3–4.

27 AGA, p. 5; American Rivers, p. 4; Nevada/

Sierra, p. 7; MISO, p. 4; SoCal, p. 4; EEI, p. 8.

28 American Rivers, pp. 3–4.

29 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), p. 2; MISO,

p. 4; Interior, p. 1.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

a ‘‘best efforts’’ basis. This practice

assures that users who may lack specific

proprietary software will be able to

access documents most of the time. As

noted above, however, some documents

cannot be converted to PDF successfully

and thus some conversions will not be

entirely accurate or complete. The

FERC-created PDFs should not be

considered authoritative. Persons

submitting documents through eFiling

will have the option of filing in any

format listed as acceptable by the

Secretary.

23. The Secretary’s instructions will

require PDF files that are submitted to

be produced in a manner that retains the

ability to search the document (‘‘printto-PDF’’), except in cases where it is

impracticable for the filer to do

otherwise. This is often the case with

exhibits, for example. The search feature

provides the Commission and the public

access to tools that permit faster

searches, increased accuracy, and

enhanced analytical and processing

capabilities that modern software

technology provides.30

24. Submission of text documents will

be permissible in native or in searchable

format. We will not require submission

of text documents in both native and

open formats. In most cases, submission

of text documents in their native

formats is the simplest option. Not all

users possess the same degree of

technical knowledge. Requiring

conversion of documents to open

formats might serve as a barrier to the

use of the eFiling system for some users,

a possibility that runs counter to the

underlying purpose of the system.

25. Submission of spreadsheets in

native format will be required. Some

commenters expressed concern that

spreadsheets in native format may

contain formulas and other data that are

confidential.31 One commenter argues

further that formula and data may

contain proprietary information, and

that a native format requirement may

contravene the Interstate Commerce Act

prohibition against disclosing

individual shipper information. That

commenter believes the requirement to

provide formulas may lead to less

publicly available data.32

26. The Commission addressed these

issues before. In Order No. 582, the

Commission required pipelines filing

rate cases pursuant to Part 154 of the

Commission’s regulations to file data

30 The Commission notes that PG&E’s PDF

posting is an excellent example of such a document:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/

doc_info.asp?document_id=13543136.

31 MISO, p. 4; PJM Interconnection, p. 3;

Enbridge, p. 8.

32 32 Enbridge, p. 8.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

and allocation and rate design formulas

in electronic formats. The Commission

found that formulas facilitate an

understanding of the applicant’s

positions and reduce the requirement

for subsequent data requests. The

Commission went on to note that the

requirement was not to submit the

whole rate case in spreadsheet format.33

The same will be true here. The

Commission is simply providing a

different means by which data

requirements may be submitted, not

changing the requirements themselves.

A filer still may request confidential

treatment. In such cases, the data sets

and spreadsheets should be submitted

in both privileged, unredacted form and

in public, redacted form, pursuant to 18

CFR 388.112.34 Depending on the

application and the information being

redacted, a redaction might be

accomplished by filing a print to PDF or

a scanned, searchable document, by

converting a spreadsheet to values-only

form, or by some other means. It would

be up to the filer to choose an

appropriate means of protecting its

information in requesting confidential

treatment under the Commission’s

regulations.

27. We do not agree with the concerns

that documents may be altered. There is

no reason to believe that users will be

able to compromise the Commission’s

system and alter files in eLibrary.

Furthermore, if a user downloads a

document from eLibrary and alters it for

the user’s own purposes, the

authoritative document will remain in

eLibrary to refute the alteration. We also

do not believe that the desire to include

a scanned signature is sufficient to

outweigh the greater usefulness of

searchable documents. As stated in the

NOPR, the Commission’s regulations

provide for electronic signatures, so an

image of a signature is not necessary for

purposes of verification. For submitters

who still see a need for an image of a

handwritten signature, we note that it is

possible to insert an image into a Word

document. Moreover, filers that

previously scanned documents into PDF

format can produce a print-to-PDF

searchable document and attach a single

scanned signature page.

D. Quick Comment and Documentless

Intervention

28. The NOPR’s proposal to

implement online forms that would

allow users to intervene in Commission

proceedings without filing separate

33 Filing and Reporting Requirements for

Interstate Natural, Gas Company Rate Schedules

and Tariffs, Order No. 582, FERC Stats. and Regs.,

¶ 31,025, p. 31,435 (1995).

34 See Order No. 582 at pp. 31,412–413, 31,435.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

documents and to submit comments

easily in P (Hydropower Project), PF

(Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed

gas pipelines), and CP (Certificates for

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines)

proceedings drew support from some

commenters 35 and opposition from a

smaller number. Some commenters

objected to these features as

unneeded.36 Some commenters

expressed concern that there should be

some provision for prompt service of

interventions and comments submitted

through the proposed online forms.37

One commenter requested that users

submitting quick comments be required

to provide mailing addresses and other

information.38 Another suggested that

the quick comment feature be extended

to include electric matters and

rulemakings.39

29. Both features are sufficiently

useful to justify their implementation.

Documentless intervention, which will

be available for all proceedings, will

provide a simple method of intervening.

The filer and text for all documentless

interventions will be placed on eLibrary

to permit challenges to intervention. We

believe that the quick comment feature

will make it easier for individuals who

are not intimately familiar with

Commission procedures to submit

comments. This added convenience

should primarily impact proceedings in

which landowners may wish to

comment, which is the reason we will

restrict this feature to the proceedings

listed in the preceding paragraph. We

will consider expanding the availability

of the feature in the future. We will not

require quick comment submitters to

include mailing addresses, a potential

invasion of privacy that is not

warranted. With respect to service of

interventions and comments, these

features will not involve changes to the

Commission’s regulations. Any

regulations governing service will

continue to apply. Furthermore, the use

of eSubscription should suffice to

ensure that interested persons receive

prompt notice of these submissions.

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

E. Midnight Filing

30. Comments were mixed on

whether to regard documents submitted

through eFiling as having been filed on

a specific day as long as the document

is received on or before midnight

35 AGA, p. 4; American Rivers, pp. 4–5; Enbridge,

p. 11; PG&E, pp. 7–8; Spectra Energy Transmission,

LLC (Spectra) (quick comment only), p. 3; INGAA,

pp. 9–10.

36 FirstEnergy (quick comment only), pp. 3–5;

Nevada/Sierra, pp. 7–8; EEI, pp. 14–16.

37 EEI, p. 15; Enbridge, p. 11; SoCal, p. 5.

38 INGAA, p. 10.

39 PG&E, p. 7.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

Eastern Standard Time of that day.

While some commenters favored the

change,40 a larger number either favored

it only under specified conditions or

opposed it altogether.41 The objections

included the personal hardship of latehour filing, unfairness to paper filers,

and the possibility that some filers

would use the opportunity to file

improper reply comments in response to

comments filed earlier in the day. Some

commenters suggested that if we moved

the deadline, we should ensure that

comments would not be visible to the

public in eLibrary until the next day.

Others were concerned that the eFiling

system could be unavailable to a user

facing a deadline after it was too late to

make a paper filing. We also received

suggestions that move the deadline to an

intermediate hour,42 such as 8 p.m.

Eastern Time, as an accommodation to

users in Western time zones.

31. Based on the concerns raised in

the comments, we will not at this time

alter the filing deadline. It will remain

at close of business, i.e., 5 p.m. Eastern

Time.

F. Miscellaneous Comments

32. On August 22, 2007, the

Commission hosted a technical

conference that discussed the proposed

changes to electronic filing and

electronic file and document format

instructions that are associated with this

proceeding. The conference was

conducted in two sessions. Session 1

presented an overview of the electronic

filing submission instructions that will

apply universally. Session 2 was

divided into sections that discussed

information that is specific to each

industry.

33. We received some comments on

various technical aspects of documents

submitted through eFiling, many of

which were discussed during the

technical conference.43 These comments

will be taken into account by

Commission staff 44 in developing and

revising the filing instructions that the

Secretary will issue. The instructions for

eFiling are an ongoing process, as staff

often receives feedback on the system

from users, including comments

40 APSC, p. 3; Bonneville, p. 2; Spectra, p. 4.

41 AGA, pp. 6–8; INGAA, pp. 11–12; FirstEnergy,

pp. 2–3; Mill, Balis & O’Neil, P.C., pp. 1–4; Phillip

Marston, p. 1; PJM Interconnection, p. 3–4; PJM

Transmission Owners, pp. 2–6; Nevada/Sierra, p. 8;

MISO, p. 5; Williston Basin, pp. 9–12; Enbridge, pp.

11–13; EEI, pp. 16–17.

42 PJM Transmission Owners, p. 6; SoCal, pp. 5–

6.

43 PG&E, pp. 6–7; PJM, p. 3; EEI, pp. 11–14.

44 The Appendix contains the comments on the

draft document manual that was discussed at the

technical conference, as well as the Commission’s

responses.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

65663

received informally during outreach

efforts that give users an introduction to

various aspects of FERC Online.45 The

delegated authority the Commission is

giving the Secretary to make changes to

the various requirements to make an

electronic filing through the notice

process will permit these instructions to

be updated in a timely manner in

response to user needs and changes in

FERC’s technological capabilities.46

34. INGAA proposes that the

pipeline’s Index of Customers report,

already an electronic-only filing, be

made through eFiling 7.0.47 The

Commission agrees.

35. INGAA and PG&E 48 request that

the Commission hold additional

technical conferences to review both the

proposed instructions applicable to

electronic documents in general and

existing electronic document

instructions, and software techniques

that may assist filers in creating

documents that satisfy the filers’

objectives. Further conferences should

not be necessary. The Secretary engages

in outreach with the public to review

new or existing electronic document or

submission instructions. This outreach

often generates feedback that

Commission staff takes into account in

managing the system.

36. Some commenters made

suggestions for improvements in the

Commission’s online systems. These

included requests that we take steps to

ensure that each entity in the

eRegistration system has only one

registration 49 and that we institute an

automated service feature for service

among participants.50 The problem of

multiple registrations, specifically with

entities being registered more than once

under slightly different names, is an

issue that we hope to address in the

future. Similarly, an automated service

feature would add value for users and

we hope to be able to institute such a

feature as we upgrade the system.

III. Information Collection Statement

37. Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) regulations require OMB to

approve certain information collection

requirements imposed by agency rule.51

This Final Rule does not contain any

45 One commenter, Enbridge, pp. 10–11,

expressed concern about file naming conventions.

Users should be aware that naming conventions

will change with eFiling 7.0, a change that will be

spelled out in the Secretary’s instructions.

46 Williston, p. 5.

47 INGAA, App. A, p. 5.

48 INGAA, pp. 2–3, App. A, pp. 4–8; PG&E, pp.

6–7.

49 Enbridge, pp. 6–7.

50 EEI, pp. 10–11.

51 5 CFR 1320.12.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

65664

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

information collection requirements and

compliance with the OMB regulations is

thus not required.

IV. Environmental Analysis

38. 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.52 Issuance of this Final

Rule does not represent a major federal

action having a significant adverse effect

on the quality of the human

environment under the Commission’s

regulations implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act. Part 380 of

the Commission’s regulations lists

exemptions to the requirement to draft

an Environmental Analysis or

Environmental Impact Statement.

Included is an exemption for

procedural, ministerial or internal

administrative actions.53 This

rulemaking is exempt under that

provision.

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

39. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980 (RFA) 54 generally requires a

description and analysis of final rules

that will have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This Final Rule concerns

procedural matters and is expected to

increase the ease and convenience of

filing. The Commission certifies that it

will not have a significant economic

impact upon participants in

Commission proceedings. An analysis

under the RFA is not required.

VI. Document Availability

40. In addition to publishing the full

text of this document in the Federal

Register, the Commission provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

view and/or print the contents of this

document via the Internet through the

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’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.

41. From the Commission’s Home

Page on the Internet, this information is

available on eLibrary. The full text of

this document is available on eLibrary

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for

viewing, printing, and/or downloading.

To access this document in eLibrary,

type the docket number excluding the

last three digits of this document in the

docket number field.

52 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

42. User assistance is available for

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site

during normal business hours from

FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652

(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail

at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the

Public Reference Room at (202) 502–

8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the

Public Reference Room at

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional

Notification

43. These revisions are effective

December 24, 2007. Changes made by

this Final Rule to the Commission’s

eFiling system will be implemented at

a later date to be announced by the

Secretary.

44. 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 nonagency parties.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 375

Authority delegations (Government

agencies), Seals and insignia, Sunshine

Act.

18 CFR Part 385

Administrative practice and

procedure, Electric utilities, Penalties,

Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

By direction of the Commission.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission amends Parts 375 and 385,

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows.

PART 375—THE COMMISSION

■ 1. The authority citation for part 375

continues to read as follows:

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

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

2601–2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352, 16451–

16463.

■ 2. Section 375.302 is amended by

revising paragraph (z) to read as follows:

§ 375.302

Delegations to the Secretary.

*

*

*

*

*

(z) Issue instructions pertaining to

allowable electronic file and document

formats, the filing of complex

documents, whether paper copies are

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

1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

required, and procedural guidelines for

submissions via the Internet, on

electronic media or via other electronic

means.

PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE

■ 3. The authority citation for part 385

continues to read as follows:

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

717–717z, 3301–3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a–825v,

2601–2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701,

9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352, 16441, 16451–

16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1–85

(1988).

■ 4. Section 385.2001 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as

follows:

§ 385.2001

Filings (Rule 2001).

(a) Filings with the Commission.

(1) * * *

(iii) By filing via the Internet pursuant

to Rule 2003 through the links provided

at http://www.ferc.gov.

*

*

*

*

*

■ 5. Section 385.2003 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 385.2003

Specifications (Rule 2003).

*

*

*

*

*

(c) Filing via the Internet. (1) All

documents filed under this Chapter may

be filed via the Internet except those

listed by the Secretary. Except as

otherwise specifically provided in this

Chapter, filing via the Internet is in lieu

of other methods of filing. Internet

filings must be made in accordance with

instructions issued by the Secretary and

made available online at http://

www.ferc.gov. Provisions of this chapter

or directions from the Commission

containing requirements as to the

content and format of specific types of

filings remain applicable.

(2) The Secretary will make available

on the Commission’s Web site a list of

document types that may not be filed

via the Internet, as well as instructions

pertaining to allowable electronic file

and document formats, the filing of

complex documents, whether paper

copies are required, and procedural

guidelines.

*

*

*

*

*

Note: The following Appendix will not

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix

53 18 CFR 380.4(1) and (5).

54 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

65665

COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT MANUAL

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

No.

Commenter

Manual ¶

Comment

Response

Consistent with Staff’s comments at the

technical conference, the instructions

should be read as not requiring, but only

encouraging, the use of automatic table

of contents and booking marking functions, and that not using these features

will not result in rejection of the filing.

EEI requests clarification that spreadsheets

do not need to be submitted in native file

format if no formulas are included.

The Commission agrees with regard to the

general instructions. However, to the extent that there are regulations that require

table of contents in a document, then

these software features should be used.

1 ..........

EEI, p. 12 INGAA,

App. A, p. 5.

4.B and 4.E.c ...

2 ..........

EEI, p. 12 ..................

4.C ....................

3 ..........

EEI, p. 12 ..................

4.D ....................

4 ..........

INGAA, App. A, p. 6

4.E ....................

5 ..........

EEI, p. 13 ..................

5 .......................

6 ..........

Enbridge, pp. 10–11

5–10 .................

The Commission should clarify the effect

that the file naming conventions will have

on existing file naming conventions.

7 ..........

EEI, p. 13 ..................

6 .......................

8 ..........

Enbridge, p. 10;

INGAA, App. A, p.

6.

6 .......................

9 ..........

EEI, p. 13 ..................

6 and 8 .............

10 ........

EEI, p. 13 ..................

11 and 14 .........

The word ‘‘tariff’’ should be removed from

the instruction.

The proposed 60 character limit needs to

be reflected in other eFiling documents,

and the Commission should clarify whether characters other than alpha-numeric

are permitted in file names.

The DOS file name character limit should

be followed only by persons using DOS.

Otherwise, more user-friendly names

should be used.

The instructions should be modified to reflect

the

format

requirements

of

§ 385.2003. If the intent is to relax these

regulations, then the regulations should

be rewritten. If there are any documents

to which § 385.2003 does not apply, the

instructions should note them.

11 ........

EEI, p. 14 ..................

12 .....................

Instruction should note that it does not

apply to text filings, nor testimony or exhibits where the ALJ typically dictates

header format.

12 ........

EEI, p. 14 ..................

12 .....................

The use of ‘‘et al.’’ should be permitted with

the company name.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

PO 00000

This instruction should be corrected to include both spreadsheets and text files in

the list of exceptions, as they are covered

by other instructions.

Clarify that it is acceptable to use the ‘‘Insert’’ feature of PDF applications during

the creation of an electronic file.

There is no need to include a transmittal

letter and, indeed, it should be discouraged, when a single document filing is

made. Further, the Commission should

encourage the use of a single electronic

document file and require the use of the

label ‘‘Transmittal Letter’’ only when multiple and separate electronic documents

are filed.

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

The Commission clarifies that the instruction is written broadly. EEI’s proposal

could be implemented in a manner that

could inhibit the ability to view and analyze the data. The Commission will permit

such submissions, but will monitor the

manner in which filers use this flexibility.

EEI is correct.

The Adobe ‘‘Document/Insert’’ function is

acceptable.

The Commission clarifies that the term

‘‘Transmittal Letter’’ as used in the instructions is solely for the purpose of the

eFiling software to identify the requisite

lead public document for filings consisting

of several documents. It does not have

the same definition as used in several

sections of the Commission regulations.

The contents of the ‘‘Transmittal Letter’’

electronic file can go beyond the content

requirements of a transmittal letter as

provided for in the regulations.

The example provided by Enbridge is related to the Index of Customers. Consistent with finding that the Index of Customers may be eFiled, the Secretary will

modify the acceptable electronic file list.

It will be corrected.

The Secretary will update other eFiling documentation to reflect this and other

changes.

No change is necessary.

There are hundreds of different types of

documents filed with the Commission.

The instructions are meant to be flexible

and not prescriptive for all possible documents. The Commission will monitor how

filers’ documents appear and their utility.

If changes to either the instructions or

regulations are necessary, either the Secretary or the Commission will propose the

necessary modifications.

The Commission clarifies that the required

information should be shown at least

once at the beginning of every document.

Readers should not have to rely on the

Commission’s eLibrary to determine the

source of the document. ALJs may impose additional requirements.

The Commission so clarifies.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

65666

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 225 / Friday, November 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

COMMENTS ON DOCUMENT MANUAL—Continued

No.

Commenter

Manual ¶

Comment

13 ........

Enbridge, p. 10 .........

12 .....................

14 ........

Enbridge, p. 10;

INGAA, App. A, pp.

7–8.

13 .....................

With regard to the location of data in the

headers and footers, clarify that if there is

no specific instruction for the data’s location, it may be placed in any location in

the header.

Clarify the meaning of ‘‘hard-keyed’’ headers or footers in tab-delimited or native

format data files, and whether this requirement is applicable to headers and

footers created by text programs such as

Word.

15 ........

EEI, p. 14 PJM, p. 3

17 .....................

16 ........

EEI, p. 14 INGAA,

App. A, p. 5–6.

28.d ..................

17 ........

INGAA, App. A, p. 3

passim ..............

[FR Doc. E7–22799 Filed 11–21–07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558

New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal

Feeds; Ractopamine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with RULES

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

animal drug regulations to reflect

approval of a supplemental new animal

drug application (NADA) filed by

Elanco Animal Health. The

supplemental NADA provides for an

increased level of monensin in two-way

combination Type B and Type C

medicated feeds containing ractopamine

hydrochloride and monensin for cattle

fed in confinement for slaughter.

DATES: This rule is effective November

23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel A. Benz, Center for Veterinary

VerDate Aug<31>2005

14:51 Nov 21, 2007

Jkt 214001

Response

EEI notes that the last sentence is in error

and should be deleted; whereas PJM is

concerned about the implications this instruction may have with regard to access

to its internal data.

Clarify the use and appearance of

hyperlinks in an electronic document, and

whether their use will result in a rejection

of the filing.

INGAA notes that the Commission’s Part

154 electronic document instructions date

from 1977[sic]. INGAA requests that

those instructions be updated to reflect

some of the flexibility offered by the new

general instructions for electronic documents.

Medicine (HFV–126), Food and Drug

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0223, email: daniel.benz@fda.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco

Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly

& Co., Lilly Corporate Center,

Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a

supplement to NADA 141 225 that

provides for use of OPTAFLEXX

(ractopamine hydrochloride) and

RUMENSIN (monensin USP) Type A

medicated articles to make dry and

liquid two-way combination medicated

feeds for cattle fed in confinement for

slaughter. The supplemental NADA

provides for an increased level of

monensin in combination Type B and

Type C medicated feeds. The

supplemental NADA is approved as of

October 30, 2007, and the regulations in

21 CFR 558.500 are amended to reflect

the approval.

In accordance with the freedom of

information provisions of 21 CFR part

20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a

summary of safety and effectiveness

data and information submitted to

support approval of this application

may be seen in the Division of Dockets

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.

1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

See item 11 above.

Most native format data files and some

spreadsheet files should not have hardkeyed headers or footers, as they disrupt

the analysis and manipulation of the contents. The instruction is not relevant for

text files, where the word processor normally manages headers and footers separate from the text content.

EEI is correct, the last sentence should be

struck. This moots PJM’s concern.

The Commission clarifies that parties may

not use hyperlinks as a means to include

items as part of the record they intend to

rely upon. Hyperlinks may be used as

part of citations, and word processor conversions into hyperlinks were not the

focus of this instruction.

While beyond the scope of this proceeding,

INGAA should contact the Secretary with

a list of suggested changes and procedures.

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

The agency has determined under 21

CFR 25.33(a)(2) that this action is of a

type that does not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on

the human environment. Therefore,

neither an environmental assessment

nor environmental impact statement is

required.

This rule does not meet the definition

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’

Therefore, it is not subject to the

congressional review requirements in 5

U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558

Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21

CFR part 558 is amended as follows:

PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR

USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 558 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1