[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63980-63986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22141]



[[Page 63980]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 388

[Docket No. RM06-23-000; Order No. 702]


Critical Energy Infrastructure Information

Issued October 30, 2007.
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). The final rule 
reflects comments filed in response to the September 21, 2006 notice 
seeking public comment on proposed changes to the Commission's CEII 
rules. The final rule: Modifies non-disclosure agreements; modifies the 
Commission's process to allow the CEII Coordinator to respond to CEII 
requests by letter; provides landowners access to alignment sheets for 
the routes across or in the vicinity of their properties; includes a 
fee provision; limits the portions of forms and reports the Commission 
defines as containing CEII; eliminates as a category of documents the 
Non-Internet Public designation; and provides that the Commission will 
seek a requester's date and place of birth on a case-by-case basis 
rather than require that information with every request for CEII. 
Finally, the request for social security numbers is being eliminated.

DATES: Effective Date: The rule will become effective December 14, 
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey H. Kaplan, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-13, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8788.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, 
Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff

    1. On September 21, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on its procedures for dealing with critical 
energy infrastructure information (CEII).\1\ After receiving comments 
in response to the NOPR, the Commission amends and clarifies 18 CFR 
388.113 and its CEII process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, 71 FR 58325 
(October 3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,607 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. Shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Commission 
began its efforts with respect to CEII.\2\ As a preliminary step, the 
Commission removed from its public files and Internet page documents 
such as oversized maps that were likely to contain detailed 
specifications of facilities, and directed the public to use the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request process to obtain such 
information.\3\ The Commission established its CEII rules in Order Nos. 
630 and 630-A.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Statement of Policy on Treatment of Previously Public 
Documents, 66 FR 52917 (Oct. 18, 2001), 97 FERC ] 61,130 (2001).
    \3\ The FOIA process is specified in 5 U.S.C. 552 and the 
Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 388.108.
    \4\ Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 630, 
68 Fed. Reg. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On the same day as the Commission issued the NOPR in this docket 
it also issued an instant and final rule that clarified the definition 
of CEII, required requesters of CEII to submit executed non-disclosure 
agreements with their requests, and provided that the notice and 
opportunity to comment on a CEII request would be combined with the 
notice of release of information.\5\ Thus, the current procedures 
require that each CEII requester file a signed, written request in 
which he or she provides to the CEII Coordinator detailed information 
about himself or herself and his or her need for the information, along 
with an executed non-disclosure agreement. Commission staff verifies 
and utilizes this information to determine whether to release the CEII 
to the requester. The current process requires that Commission staff 
verify each requester when each request is made. This final rule under 
consideration here reflects the Commission's ongoing commitment to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the CEII regulations and make changes as 
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 
683, 71 FR 58273 (October 3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,228 
(2006) (September 21 Order); order on reh'g, Order No. 683-A, 72 FR 
18572 (April 13, 2007) (Order No. 683-A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary and Discussion of Comments Received

A. Introduction

    4. In the NOPR, the Commission invited comments on the following 
issues: (1) Annual certification for repeat requesters, (2) execution 
of non-disclosure agreements by authorized representatives of 
organizations on behalf of all of the organizations' employees, (3) 
charging fees, (4) issuing letter responses to CEII requests; (5) 
providing alignment sheets to landowners for the routes across or in 
the vicinity of their properties; (6) limiting the portions of forms 
and reports the Commission now defines as containing CEII; and (7) 
eliminating the Non-Internet Public (NIP) designation. The Commission 
received thirteen responses to the NOPR.\6\ While some of the comments 
address the specific questions raised by the Commission, many of the 
comments relate to other aspects of the CEII process. Commenters raise 
issues regarding verification of requesters and the use of non-
disclosure agreements and how to ensure compliance with such 
agreements. In addition, at least one commenter raises concerns about 
CEII claims in the context of market-based rate filings, and how the 
typical CEII response times makes it difficult to participate in such 
proceedings. Several commenters raise issues regarding state agency 
requests for CEII. These issues are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Appendix A for a list of commenters. In addition to the 
submitted comments, in the Commission's final rule on Regulations 
for Filing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric 
Transmission Facilities, the Commission stated that copies of the 
comments submitted by Western Energy Board, NARUC, and California 
Resources will be placed in the official record in Docket No. RM06-
23-000, and will be addressed in this proceeding. See Regulations 
for Filing Applications for Permits to Site Interstate Electric 
Transmission Facilities, 71 FR 69440 (Dec. 1, 2006); FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,234 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Annual Certification for Repeat Requesters

    5. Several commenters support the Commission's proposal to allow an 
annual certification for repeat requesters.\7\ AGA states that 
expediting access to frequent requesters is appropriate, particularly 
since many parties, such as local distribution companies, need repeated 
access to CEII to evaluate proposed certificate or rate and tariff-
related proposals.\8\ MidAmerican and Williston Basin both support 
annual certification for repeat requesters provided that the submitter 
of the CEII is given notice of each request.\9\ Similarly, INGAA 
requests that the Commission clarify that submitters

[[Page 63981]]

of CEII receive notice of subsequent requests by certified requesters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Department of the Interior at p. 3, APPA and TAPS at pp. 5-
6, AGA at p. 3, and EEI Reply Comments at p. 5.
    \8\ AGA at p. 3.
    \9\ MidAmerican at pp. 2-3 and Williston Basin at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Although several commenters generally support eliminating 
redundant requirements, they contend that an annual certification 
period that does not require a non-disclosure agreement for each 
requester is not appropriate in all instances.\10\ The Department of 
the Interior suggests that once the CEII Coordinator determines that a 
requester does not pose a security risk, there should be some mechanism 
to consider changed circumstances.\11\ In addition, Dominion contends 
that the Commission lacks meaningful sanctions for violations of a non-
disclosure agreement.\12\ EEI asserts that the Commission's proposal 
does not clearly state that the first non-disclosure agreement signed 
by a requester in a given year will apply to all subsequent releases of 
CEII in that year to that requester.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Dominion at p. 6 and EEI Reply Comments at p. 5.
    \11\ Department of the Interior at p. 3.
    \12\ Dominion at p. 4.
    \13\ EEI at pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The California Agencies contend that the NOPR relaxes the 
required showing of a particular need for CEII for a twelve-month 
period.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ California Agencies at p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    8. The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify several aspects 
of its CEII procedures. First, the Commission encourages filers to 
negotiate with requesters to provide data directly to the requesters, 
where appropriate. Second, if a CEII requester receives an annual 
certification, it simply means that the Commission does not have 
concerns about releasing CEII to that individual. In response to the 
concerns raised by MidAmerican, Williston Basin, and INGAA, such an 
annual certification does not eliminate the current requirement to 
notify the submitter of CEII and give the submitter an opportunity to 
comment on all requests for CEII.\15\ In answer to the California 
Agencies' concerns, as the Commission explained in the NOPR, with each 
request, the requester will be required to provide detailed information 
as to why he or she needs the CEII.\16\ In response to EEI's concern, 
the Commission clarifies that the executed non-disclosure agreement 
originally submitted by the requester will apply to all CEII the 
requester receives from the Commission that year. In answer to the 
Department of the Interior's concern for a mechanism to consider 
changed circumstances, the Commission will modify the sample non-
disclosure agreements posted on its Web site to require that a 
requester notify the Commission of any change in the information the 
requester originally provided, e.g., a change in employment status.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 18 CFR 388.112.
    \16\ NOPR at P 5.
    \17\ The Commission clarifies that it will continue to use the 
five types of NDAs posted on its Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, with 
the modifications discussed above. The five types of NDAs posted on 
the Commission's Web site are: (1) A general NDA, (2) a media NDA, 
(3) a state agency employee NDA, (4) a consultant NDA, and (5) a 
Federal Agency Acknowledgement and Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The commenters' concerns regarding the Commission's ability to 
enforce the terms of the non-disclosure agreements are unwarranted. The 
Commission will address any violations and utilize sanctions, where 
appropriate, including civil penalties and criminal referrals. To date, 
no violations of non-disclosure agreements have been alleged against 
those granted access to CEII.

C. Authorized Representative of an Organization To Execute a Non-
Disclosure Agreement

    10. A few commenters generally support allowing an authorized 
representative of an organization to execute a non-disclosure agreement 
on behalf of the organization's employees.\18\ Williston Basin requests 
that the submitters of the CEII receive notice of all requests for 
release and have an opportunity to comment, i.e., Williston Basin 
requests that the Commission clarify that this current practice will 
continue.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Williston Basin at p. 3, APPA and TAPS at p. 5, and EEI 
Reply Comments at p. 5.
    \19\ Williston Basin at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Several commenters oppose allowing a single representative to 
execute a non-disclosure agreement on behalf of an entire 
organization.\20\ A couple of commenters contend that certifying all 
employees of a requesting organization is too broad as it would allow 
access to CEII by individuals who may not need to review it.\21\ 
Similarly, INGAA states that the NOPR proposal that a ``member or 
employee of an organization'' may obtain CEII on behalf of an 
organization is too broad and undefined.\22\ The Allegheny Energy 
Companies and Dominion express concerns regarding whether a 
representative could bind an organization.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ SCE at p. 2, AGA at p. 4, Dominion at p. 8, INGAA at pp. 2-
3, MidAmerican at p. 3, and EEI at p. 10.
    \21\ AGA at p. 4 and MidAmerican at pp. 3-4.
    \22\ INGAA at p. 3.
    \23\ Allegheny at p. 7, Dominion at pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    12. After reviewing the comments received, the Commission is making 
the following changes to its proposal in the NOPR. First, all 
individuals in an organization with access to CEII must be named in the 
non-disclosure agreement and must also execute the non-disclosure 
agreement. Second, any subsequent additions to or deletions of names on 
the non-disclosure agreement must be sent to the Commission as well as 
to the submitter of the CEII. Further, the revised non-disclosure 
agreement should be executed by the newly-named individuals. If there 
is no written opposition within five (5) days of notifying the CEII 
Coordinator and the submitter concerning the addition of any newly-
named individuals, the CEII Coordinator will issue a standard notice 
accepting the additions of names to the non-disclosure agreement. If 
there is a timely opposition from the submitter, the CEII Coordinator 
will issue a formal determination addressing the merits of such 
opposition. These changes attempt to ensure that all persons with 
access to CEII acknowledge their responsibilities while avoiding 
multiple filings from each organization.

D. Fee Provision

    13. The Commission sought comments on its proposal to extend the 
fee schedule used for FOIA requests to CEII requests. One commenter, 
MidAmerican, states that it is appropriate to charge fees for 
processing CEII requests.\24\ MidAmerican further states that, provided 
the Commission's administrative costs for processing CEII requests are 
similar to the costs of processing FOIA requests, it supports the 
Commission's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ MidAmerican at p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. As explained in the NOPR, Commission staff expends valuable 
time and resources searching, reviewing, and copying documents 
responsive to CEII requests. The administrative costs of processing 
CEII requests are similar to the costs of processing FOIA requests. 
Therefore, the Commission's regulations will be modified to extend the 
FOIA fee schedule to CEII requests.

E. Responding to CEII Requests With Letters

    15. While most commenters do not address the Commission's proposal 
to issue letters rather than delegated orders in response to CEII 
requests, one commenter supports the proposal \25\ and two commenters 
oppose it.\26\ EEI asserts

[[Page 63982]]

that the NOPR ``forc[es] submitters who oppose release to pursue 
complex `reverse FOIA' litigation rather than the much more straight 
forward rehearing request and appellate review.'' \27\ SCE contends 
that the Commission's CEII regulations were specifically designed to 
protect security and safety information, which is different from other 
confidential information. Therefore, SCE asserts that parties should 
not be denied remedies, including the right to rehearing, if they 
believe a serious security risk is posed by the release of CEII.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ MidAmerican at p. 2.
    \26\ SCE at pp. 3-4; EEI at pp. 5-6.
    \27\ EEI at p. 5. EEI contends that the September 21 Order's 
combination of the notice and opportunity to comment with the notice 
of release eliminates due process rights of CEII submitters by 
reducing the notice period. The Commission addressed these concerns 
in Order No. 683-A at P 9-11.
    \28\ SCE at pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    16. In response to EEI's observation that those who object to the 
CEII Coordinator's and General Counsel's decisions concerning access to 
CEII will have to seek judicial rather than Commission remedies, we 
take this opportunity to clarify and reiterate that a CEII 
Coordinator's decision denying access to CEII may be appealed by a 
requester to the General Counsel as a FOIA appeal pursuant to section 
388.110. That is the process contemplated in the Administrative 
Procedure Act \29\ for seeking information under the FOIA and there is 
no reason to have a different process for CEII requests.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 U.S.C. Subchapter II.
    \30\ Consistent with FOIA procedures, a CEII determination that 
withholds information will explain the appeal rights of the CEII 
requester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. SCE is mistaken that the Commission has separate regulations 
for CEII because the information is ``more sensitive than other non-
public information.'' \31\ To the contrary, as CEII, by definition, is 
exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA,\32\ the Commission developed 
its CEII regulations as a disclosure mechanism to provide CEII to those 
with a legitimate need for it.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ SCE at p. 3.
    \32\ In its comments, AGA states that there appears to be the 
potential for requesters to circumvent CEII protection by filing 
FOIA requests. AGA at pp. 5-6. But in the event documents containing 
CEII are deemed responsive to FOIA requests, they are exempt from 
mandatory disclosure pursuant to Exemption 7(F). See 5 U.S.C. Sec.  
552 (b)(7)(F). Therefore, CEII can only be obtained through the CEII 
process.
    \33\ See, e.g., Order No. 630 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Landowners' Access to Alignment Sheets

    18. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to grant access to 
alignment sheets filed pursuant to section 380.12(c)(3)(ii) to 
landowners for routes across or in the vicinity of their 
properties.\34\ SCE does not oppose the proposal provided that the 
landowners receive only those sheets related to their properties and 
the alignment sheets retain the CEII designation.\35\ Several 
commenters oppose this proposal and allege that granting access should 
be accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement or some other restriction 
on the publication of the information.\36\ EEI asserts that the 
Commission's proposal is overbroad that there must be a limit on access 
such as to those showing a substantial property nexus to the 
project.\37\ INGAA suggests that the Commission specify which 
landowners may obtain detailed alignment sheets by utilizing the 
definition of landowners entitled to notice under section 157.6(d)(2) 
\38\ of the Commission's regulations.\39\ Dominion and Williston Basin 
state that there is some ambiguity concerning the proper classification 
of alignment sheets as CEII seeks clarification of the type of 
information found in alignment sheets that could be considered 
CEII.\40\ Williston Basin also seeks clarification on whether companies 
will be required to post the alignment sheets on their Web sites.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ NOPR at P 13.
    \35\ SCE at p. 4.
    \36\ INGAA at pp. 3-4, AGA at pp. 4-5, Dominion at pp. 8-9, and 
EEI at p. 10.
    \37\ EEI at p. 10.
    \38\ 18 CFR 157.6(d)(2) (2007).
    \39\ INGAA at pp. 3-4.
    \40\ Dominion at p. 9 and Williston Basin at p. 4.
    \41\ Williston Basin at p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    19. The Commission notes that alignment sheets can be labeled CEII 
only if they contain qualifying detailed engineering information. 
Alignment sheets often do not contain such detail, and, therefore, will 
simply be public information. The Commission clarifies its proposal 
that, for alignment sheets that do contain CEII, each landowner access 
only the alignment sheet for the limited portion of a project that 
would affect his or her land and the adjacent parcel on each side (or 
those on the same alignment sheet). The Commission understands that a 
landowner may want to discuss the proposed project with other family 
members, with legal counsel, or others. The Commission will not limit 
such discussions by requiring a landowner to sign a non-disclosure 
agreement. The Commission further clarifies that it does not require 
that companies post alignment sheets on their Web sites yet 
acknowledges that companies may choose to do so based on their public 
participation plans.
    20. The Commission accepts INGAA's proposal to use the definition 
of landowner at 18 CFR 157.6(d)(2) as the means of identifying which 
landowners may obtain alignment sheets containing CEII without 
executing non-disclosure agreements.

G. Forms Containing CEII

    21. In the NOPR, the Commission provided guidelines for labeling 
specific documents submitted to the Commission as CEII. There were 
several comments regarding the guidelines.\42\ APPA and TAPS support 
the guidance.\43\ MidAmerican suggests that the Commission incorporate 
the guidelines into specific filing instructions for documents 
regularly filed with the Commission.\44\ INGAA and Williston Basin both 
note that the Commission did not include Exhibit G-II, which contains 
flow diagram data, in its guidelines for identifying CEII.\45\ They 
contend that this exhibit includes information that may be useful to 
those with intent to do harm and request that the Commission include 
Exhibit G-II in its guidelines as a document that contains CEII.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ APPA and TAPS at pp. 6-7, MidAmerican at p. 4, INGAA at pp. 
6-7, and Williston Basin at 6.
    \43\ APPA and TAPS at pp. 6-7.
    \44\ MidAmerican at p. 4.
    \45\ INGAA at pp. 6-7 and Williston Basin at p. 6.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    22. The Commission clarifies that Exhibit G-II may contain CEII. 
Further, if an applicant believes that information in Exhibit G-II 
meets the definition of CEII, then the relevant part of the exhibit 
should be filed as CEII. Therefore, the Commission adopts the 
guidelines proposed in the NOPR with the addition of the Exhibit G-II 
as a document that may contain CEII.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ NOPR at P 10-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Elimination of the Non-Internet Public Category

    23. Two commenters support the Commission proposal to eliminate the 
NIP category of documents.\48\ Dominion states that abolishing NIP 
category will be more efficient and will make the information more 
accessible to interested parties. AGA asserts that the Commission's 
proposal to eliminate NIP ``appears to reflect the reality of the 
public's continued access to energy infrastructure data from sources 
beyond the Commission's control.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Dominion at p. 5 and AGA at p. 3.
    \49\ AGA at p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Several commenters oppose the elimination of the NIP 
designation claiming that elimination will make it

[[Page 63983]]

easier for individuals with malicious intent to obtain locational 
information.\50\ Further, these commenters contend that the fact that 
such information is publicly available from other sources is not a 
valid reason to abolish the NIP designation. Rather, they contend that 
the Commission should set an example by retaining the NIP category to 
encourage other sources to be more cautious in their treatment of 
sensitive information. Before abolishing the NIP designation, NHA 
suggests that the Commission ``make a last attempt to resolve the 
confusion through the issuance of additional guidance or outreach[.]'' 
\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ EEI at pp. 9-10, Williston Basin at pp. 4-5, and INGAA at 
pp. 4-6.
    \51\ NHA at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    25. The Commission does not agree that NIP should be retained. Much 
of the information now designated as NIP is easily available on-line 
from other sources, such as the United States Geological Survey or 
commercial mapping firms. As such, retaining the NIP designation does 
not enhance security or safety. Further, the information is publicly 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Room. Withholding this 
information from the Commission's Web site may be perceived as a 
hindrance to individuals seeking to access public information.
    26. Regarding the approximately 5,400 NIP documents currently in 
the Commission's e-library records, the NOPR proposed that these 
documents simply retain the NIP designation in e-library.\52\ The 
Commission has determined that this will create confusion. Therefore, 
the Commission will provide a sixty-day time period from the date this 
order is issued in which previous submitters of NIP may specifically 
identify any documents they believe may now qualify for CEII 
protection. After the sixty-day period, all NIP documents not 
identified as CEII will be made publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ A list of these documents may be obtained by performing an 
advanced search on e-library, selecting only ``Non-Internet Public'' 
in the ``Availability'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Submitters of NIP who believe that the documents contain CEII 
should file requests with the Secretary in this docket (RM06-23-000) 
within sixty-days requesting that the designations be changed. Such 
requests should identify the specific documents by accession numbers 
and provide an accurate description of the documents.

I. State and Local Agencies' Comments

    28. Several state agencies, organizations of states, and a county 
government requested that state agencies and those similarly situated 
be allowed to obtain CEII outside the normal process because they are 
entrusted with the public safety of their citizens.\53\ EEI contends 
that such agencies should not be allowed special access to CEII.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ California State Agencies at pp. 8-10, County of Butte at 
pp. 2-3, WIEB and CREPC at pp. 7-8, NARUC at p. 12, and California 
Resources Agency at pp. 1-2.
    \54\ EEI Reply Comments at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    29. The Commission will not allow state agencies and local 
governments special access to CEII on a generic basis because such 
entities (unlike other federal agencies) may not be required to 
maintain the documents in the way the Commission maintains them. 
Moreover, state FOIA laws vary, and generic access to CEII for state 
agencies and local governments may not sufficiently protect CEII from 
release pursuant to state law. Nonetheless, the Commission will utilize 
a case-by-case approach that may permit states and other governmental 
entities to enter into memoranda of understanding with the Commission 
to simplify access to CEII while ensuring appropriate protection of 
CEII.

J. A Requestor Shall Submit a Date and Place of Birth Upon Request; 
Social Security Numbers Are Not Needed

    30. Currently, section 388.113(d) requires that a requester provide 
his or her date and place of birth in each request for CEII. Experience 
in processing requests for CEII since issuance of Order No. 630 has 
shown that the legitimacy of a particular requester can usually be 
determined from information other than the requester's date and place 
of birth. However, occasionally, a date and place of birth are needed 
to assess the legitimacy of a requester. Therefore, we are revising 
section 388.113(d) to obtain that information on a case-by-case basis 
rather than obtain it in every instance. When needed, the CEII 
Coordinator will ask the requester to provide his or her date and place 
of birth to process the request for CEII.
    31. In a similar vein, the Commission will revise section 
388.113(d) to eliminate the request for voluntary submission of social 
security numbers. Again, experience has shown that social security 
numbers are not needed to determine the legitimacy of requesters.
    32. These revisions will minimize privacy concerns regarding the 
Commission's collection and maintenance of personally identifiable 
information without compromising security regarding the release of 
CEII.

K. Miscellaneous Issues

    33. The Department of the Interior states that the NOPR offers a 
more efficient process for handling CEII requests. Nonetheless, the 
Department of the Interior contends that it needs ready access to such 
information.\55\ In Order No. 662, the Commission modified its CEII 
regulations to simplify federal agencies' access to CEII.\56\ Pursuant 
to section 388.113(d)(2) of the Commission's regulations, ``An employee 
of a federal agency acting within the scope of his or her federal 
employment may obtain CEII directly from Commission staff without 
following the procedures outlined in paragraph (d)(3) of this 
section.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Department of the Interior at p. 2.
    \56\ See Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 
662, 70 FR 37031 (June 28, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,189 
(2005) (Order No. 662).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. APPA and TAPS state that the time frame for requesting, 
obtaining, and reviewing CEII is insufficient in market-based rate 
proceedings that routinely provide a notice period of 21 days.\57\ As 
the Commission explained in Order No. 662, it is willing to consider on 
a case-by-case basis requests for extensions of time to prepare 
protests to market-based rate filings where an intervenor demonstrates 
that it needs additional time to obtain and analyze CEII.\58\ The 
Commission further encourages the parties in cases in which CEII is 
filed to promptly negotiate a protective order in the proceeding.\59\ 
Moreover, the Commission, in its NOPR regarding market-based rates for 
wholesale sales of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services by 
public utilities, sought comments on whether CEII designations remain a 
concern since issuance of Order No. 662.\60\ In the market-based rate 
Final Rule, the Commission adopted procedures, now codified as section 
37.35(f) of the Commission's regulations, to ensure that intervenors 
have prompt access to relevant information for which privileged 
treatment, including CEII, is claimed.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ APPA and TAPS at pp. 4-5.
    \58\ Order No. 662 at P 25.
    \59\ Id.
    \60\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, 
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, 71 FR 33102, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,602 (2006) (MBR NOPR).
    \61\ See also Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric 
Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order 
No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295 (June 21, 2007) (market-based rate Final 
Rule).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 63984]]

    35. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that it ``retains its 
concern for CEII filing abuses and will take action against applicants 
or parties who knowingly misfile information as CEII, including 
rejection of an application where information is mislabeled as CEII.'' 
\62\ While some commenters welcome the Commission's reminder regarding 
filing abuses,\63\ several commenters express concern.\64\ Dominion 
requests that the Commission clarify that errors in classification 
based upon a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the Commission's 
regulations will not result in a rejection of a filing.\65\ Dominion 
and NHA both recommend that the Commission reject a license application 
only as a measure of last resort and only for the most egregious of 
cases.\66\ NHA further recommends continued outreach to the industry to 
reduce designation errors.\67\ EEI urges the Commission to notify the 
submitter of the information if the Commission believes that he or she 
has improperly labeled information as CEII or if the submitter has 
failed to provide a justification for treating the information as 
CEII.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ NOPR at P 16.
    \63\ APPA and TAPS at p. 6 and AGA at p. 3.
    \64\ NHA at pp. 1-2, Dominion at pp. 10-12, and EEI at pp. 8-9.
    \65\ Dominion at p. 11.
    \66\ Dominion at p. 12 and NHA at p. 2.
    \67\ Id.
    \68\ EEI at p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The Commission has continuously sought to dissuade applicants 
from carelessly using the CEII designation because such misuse prevents 
interested parties and other members of the public with a legitimate 
need from accessing information in a timely manner. The Commission 
stated as a reminder in the NOPR that applications may be rejected for 
failing to comply with the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 
388.112(b)(1).\69\ As the Commission explained in the Order No. 683-A, 
``[i]n instances in which documents are rejected for filing, the 
rejection is usually without prejudice and no substantive rights are 
lost. The application must merely be refiled in accordance with the 
procedural requirements.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ NOPR at P 16-17.
    \70\ Order No. 683-A, P 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. The Commission agrees that continued outreach will help to 
diminish designation errors. To this end, the Secretary of the 
Commission will continue to post filing guidance on the Commission's 
Web site.
    38. The Commission will also revise section 388.112(d) to reflect 
an internal procedural change. Section 388.112(d) currently provides 
that, when a FOIA or CEII request is received for information that was 
submitted to the Commission with a claim of privilege or CEII status, 
or when the Commission is considering release of such information, the 
Commission official who will determine whether to release the 
information will notify the submitter and provide an opportunity to 
comment. But in many instances, it is practical for an individual other 
than the official responsible for determining whether to release the 
information to provide such notice. Therefore, the Commission has 
decided to revise section 388.112(d) of its regulations to provide that 
any appropriate official may provide notice to the submitter.

Information Collection Statement

    39. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) regulations 
require that OMB approve certain information collection requirements 
imposed by agency rule.\71 \This final rule does not impose any 
additional information collection requirements. Therefore, the 
information collection regulations do not apply to this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Analysis

    40. 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.\72\ 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.\73\ This rule is procedural in 
nature and therefore falls under this exception; consequently, no 
environmental consideration is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 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).
    \73\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    41. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \74\ 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 Commission certifies that this rule would not 
have such an impact on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Document Availability

    42. 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.
    43. 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.
    44. 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 
[email protected]), or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-
8371, TTY 202-502-8659 (e-mail at [email protected]).

Effective Date

    45. These regulations are effective December 14, 2007.
    46. 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.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
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

0
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.


[[Page 63985]]



0
2. Section 388.109 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  388.109  Fees for record requests.

* * * * *
    (b) Fees for records not available through the Public Reference 
Room (FOIA or CEII requests). The cost of duplication of records not 
available in the Public Reference Room will depend on the number of 
documents requested, the time necessary to locate the documents 
requested, and the category of the persons requesting the records. The 
procedures for appeal of requests for fee waiver or reduction are set 
forth in Sec.  388.110.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 388.112 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(3) and revising 
paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  388.112  Requests for special treatment of documents submitted to 
the Commission.

* * * * *
    (b) Procedures. A person claiming that information warrants special 
treatment as CEII or privileged must file:
    (1) A written statement requesting CEII or privileged treatment for 
some or all of the information in a document, and the justification for 
special treatment of the information; and
    (2) The following, as applicable:
    (i) An original plus the requisite number of copies of the public 
volume filed and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the 
Secretary;
    (ii) An original plus two copies of the CEII volume, if any, filed 
and marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary; and
    (iii) An original only of the privileged volume, if any, filed and 
marked in accordance with instructions issued by the Secretary.
* * * * *
    (d) Notification of request and opportunity to comment. When a FOIA 
or CEII requester seeks a document for which privilege or CEII status 
has been claimed, or when the Commission itself is considering release 
of such information, the Commission official who will decide whether to 
release the information or any other appropriate Commission official 
will notify the person who submitted the document and give the person 
an opportunity (at least five calendar days) in which to comment in 
writing on the request. A copy of this notice will be sent to the 
requester.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 388.113 is amended by redesignating paragraph (d)(3) as 
paragraph (d)(4), revising newly designated paragraph (d)(4), and 
adding new paragraphs (d)(3) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  388.113  Accessing critical energy infrastructure information.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) A landowner whose property is crossed by or in the vicinity of 
a project may receive detailed alignment sheets containing CEII 
directly from Commission staff without submitting a non-disclosure 
agreement as outlined in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. A landowner 
must provide Commission staff with proof of his or her property 
interest in the vicinity of a project.
    (4) If any other requester has a particular need for information 
designated as CEII, the requester may request the information using the 
following procedures:
    (i) File a signed, written request with the Commission's CEII 
Coordinator. The request must contain the following: Requester's name 
(including any other name(s) which the requester has used and the dates 
the requester used such name(s)), title, address, and telephone number; 
the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity on 
whose behalf the information is requested; a detailed statement 
explaining the particular need for and intended use of the information; 
and a statement as to the requester's willingness to adhere to 
limitations on the use and disclosure of the information requested. A 
requester shall provide his or her date and place of birth upon 
request, if it is determined by the CEII Coordinator that this 
information is necessary to process the request. Unless otherwise 
provided in Section 113(d)(3), a requester must also file an executed 
non-disclosure agreement.
    (ii) A requester who seeks the information on behalf of all 
employees of an organization should clearly state that the information 
is sought for the organization, that the requester is authorized to 
seek the information on behalf of the organization, and that all the 
requesters agree to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement that must be 
executed by and will be applied to all individuals who have access to 
the CEII.
    (iii) After the request is received, the CEII Coordinator will 
determine if the information is CEII, and, if it is, whether to release 
the CEII to the requester. The CEII Coordinator will balance the 
requester's need for the information against the sensitivity of the 
information. If the requester is determined to be eligible to receive 
the information requested, the CEII Coordinator will determine what 
conditions, if any, to place on release of the information.
    (iv) If the CEII Coordinator determines that the CEII requester has 
not demonstrated a valid or legitimate need for the CEII or that access 
to the CEII should be denied for other reasons, this determination may 
be appealed to the General Counsel pursuant to Sec.  388.110 of this 
Chapter. The General Counsel will decide whether the information is 
properly classified as CEII, which by definition is exempt from release 
under FOIA, and whether the Commission should in its discretion make 
such CEII available to the CEII requester in view of the requester's 
asserted legitimacy and need.
    (v) Once a CEII requester has been verified by Commission staff as 
a legitimate requester who does not pose a security risk, his or her 
verification will be valid for the remainder of that calendar year. 
Such a requester is not required to provide detailed information about 
him or herself with subsequent requests during the calendar year. He or 
she is also not required to file a non-disclosure agreement with 
subsequent requests during the calendar year because the original non-
disclosure agreement will apply to all subsequent releases of CEII.
    (vi) If an organization is granted access to CEII as provided by 
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section, and later seeks to add 
additional individuals to the non-disclosure agreement, the names of 
these individuals must be sent to the CEII Coordinator with 
certification that notice has been given to the submitter. Any newly 
added individuals must execute a supplement to the original non-
disclosure agreement indicating their acceptance of its terms. If there 
is no written opposition within five (5) days of notifying the CEII 
Coordinator and the submitter concerning the addition of any newly-
named individuals, the CEII Coordinator will issue a standard notice 
accepting the addition of names to the non-disclosure agreement. If the 
submitter files a timely opposition with the CEII Coordinator, the CEII 
Coordinator will issue a formal determination addressing the merits of 
such opposition.
    (e) Fees for processing CEII requests will be determined in 
accordance with 18 CFR 388.109.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

APPENDIX A

[[Page 63986]]



                           List of Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Abbreviation                             Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny..................................  Allegheny Power and
                                              Allegheny Energy Supply
                                              Company, L.L.C.
AGA........................................  American Gas Association.
APPA and TAPS..............................  American Public Power
                                              Association and
                                              Transmission Access Policy
                                              Study Group.
Butte County...............................  Butte County, California.
California Resources.......................  California Resources
                                              Agency.
California State Agencies..................  California Coastal
                                              Commission, California
                                              Energy Commission,
                                              California Electricity
                                              Oversight Board, and
                                              California State Lands
                                              Commission.
Dominion...................................  Dominion Transmission Inc.,
                                              Dominion Cove Point, LNG,
                                              LP, and Dominion South
                                              Pipeline Company, LP.
EEI........................................  Edison Electric Institute.
INGAA......................................  Interstate Natural Gas
                                              Association of America.
MidAmerican................................  MidAmerican Energy Company.
NARUC......................................  National Association of
                                              Regulatory Utility
                                              Commissioners.
NHA........................................  National Hydropower
                                              Association.
SCE........................................  Southern California Edison
                                              Company.
Western Energy Board.......................  Western Interstate Energy
                                              Board and Committee on
                                              Regional Electric Power
                                              Cooperation.
Williston Basin............................  Williston Basin Interstate
                                              Pipeline Company.
Department of the Interior.................  United States Department of
                                              the Interior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-22141 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P