Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance Reliability Standard, 57526-57531 [2015-24280]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57526
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 185 / Thursday, September 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). In
addition, the Commission approves one
new definition and four revised
definitions referenced in the Reliability
Standard, as well as the assigned
violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, and the proposed
implementation plan. Consistent with
Order No. 758,2 Reliability Standard
PRC–005–4 requires applicable entities
to test and maintain certain sudden
pressure relays as part of a protection
system maintenance program.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM15–9–000, Order No. 813]
Protection System, Automatic
Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure
Relaying Maintenance Reliability
Standard
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
I. Background
Pursuant to the Federal Power
Act, the Commission approves a revised
Reliability Standard, PRC–005–4
(Protection System, Automatic
Reclosing and Sudden Pressure
Relaying Maintenance), developed and
submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
In addition, the Commission approves
one new definition and four revised
definitions referenced in the proposed
Reliability Standard, as well as the
assigned violation risk factors and
violation severity levels, and the
associated implementation plan.
Consistent with Order No. 758, the
proposed Reliability Standard requires
applicable entities to test and maintain
certain sudden pressure relays as part of
a protection system maintenance
program.
SUMMARY:
This rule will become effective
November 23, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Bradish (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (301) 665–1391, Tom.Bradish@
ferc.gov.
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–6362,
julie.greenisen@ferc.gov.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Order No. 813
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Final Rule (Issued September 17, 2015)
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the
Commission approves a revised
Reliability Standard, PRC–005–4
(Protection System, Automatic
Reclosing and Sudden Pressure
Relaying Maintenance), developed and
submitted by the North American
1 16
U.S.C. 824o (2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
A. Regulatory Background
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards, subject to Commission
review and approval.3 Once approved,
the Reliability Standards may be
enforced by the ERO subject to
Commission oversight, or by the
Commission independently.4 In 2006,
the Commission certified NERC as the
ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.5
3. In 2007, the Commission approved
an initial set of Reliability Standards
submitted by NERC, including initial
versions of four protection system and
load-shedding-related maintenance
standards: PRC–005–1, PRC–008–0,
PRC–011–0, and PRC–017–0.6 In
addition, the Commission directed
NERC to develop a revision to PRC–
005–1 incorporating a maximum time
interval during which to conduct
maintenance and testing of protection
systems, and to consider combining into
one standard the various maintenance
and testing requirements for all of the
maintenance and testing-related
standards for protection systems,
underfrequency load shedding (UFLS)
equipment and undervoltage load
shedding (UVLS) equipment.
4. In February 2012, the Commission
issued Order No. 758 in response to
NERC’s request for approval of its
interpretation of Requirement R1 of the
then-current version of the protection
system maintenance standard,
Reliability Standard PRC–005–1. In that
2 Interpretation of Protection System Reliability
Standard, Order No. 758, 138 FERC ¶ 61,094,
clarification denied, 139 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2012).
3 16 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d).
4 See id. at 824o(e).
5 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v.
FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
6 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at PP 1474, 1492, 1497, and 1514, order
on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053
(2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
order, the Commission accepted NERC’s
proposed interpretation of Requirement
R1, which provided guidance on the
types of protection system equipment to
which the Reliability Standard did or
did not apply. In reviewing NERC’s
interpretation, however, the
Commission raised several concerns
about potential gaps in the coverage of
PRC–005–1, including a concern that
the standard as written may not include
all components that serve in some
protective capacity.7
B. NERC Petition and Proposed
Standard PRC–005–4
5. On December 18, 2014, NERC
submitted a petition seeking approval of
proposed Reliability Standard PRC–
005–4, which would add to the
applicability of Reliability Standard
PRC–005–3 those sudden pressure
relays that NERC has identified as
having a potential effect on the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System.8
NERC stated that these revisions were
developed to satisfy NERC’s
commitment to develop modifications
to PRC–005 that would address the
Commission’s concerns, as set out in
Order No. 758, regarding the lack of
maintenance requirements for nonelectrical sensing relays (such as sudden
pressure relays) that could affect the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power
System.9
6. NERC stated that sudden pressure
relays are ‘‘designed to quickly detect
faults on the Bulk-Power System
transformer equipment that may remain
undetected by other Protection Systems,
and can operate to limit any potential
damage on the equipment.’’ 10 NERC
7 See Order No. 758, 138 FERC ¶ 61,094 at P 12.
NERC has been addressing the concerns stated in
Order No. 758 through a series of projects
modifying the PRC–005 standard. See Protection
System Maintenance Reliability Standard, Order
No. 793, 145 FERC ¶ 61,253 (2013) (approving
Reliability Standard PRC–005–2, which
incorporated specific minimum maintenance
activities and maximum time intervals for
maintenance of individual components of the
protection systems and load shedding equipment
affecting the bulk electric system); Protection
System Maintenance Reliability Standard, Order
No. 803,150 FERC ¶ 61,039 (2015) (approving PRC–
005–3 and directing NERC to develop a
modification to include maintenance and testing of
supervisory relays associated with relevant
autoreclosing relay schemes).
8 Reliability Standard PRC–005–4 is not attached
to the Final Rule; however, the complete text of the
Reliability Standard is available on the
Commission’s eLibrary document retrieval system
in Docket No. RM15–9–000 and is posted on
NERC’s Web site, available at: https://
www.nerc.com.
9 See NERC Petition at 3, 9.
10 Id. at 3. NERC described sudden pressure relays
as relays which ‘‘respond to changes in pressure
and are utilized as protective devices for power
transformers,’’ and which may ‘‘detect rapid
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 185 / Thursday, September 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
stated that the ‘‘misoperation of sudden
pressure relays that initiate tripping in
response to fault conditions can impact
the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System,’’ and accordingly proposed
revisions to PRC–005–3 that will require
entities to document and implement
programs for maintenance of applicable
sudden pressure relays.11
7. NERC explained that, consistent
with Order No. 758, NERC’s System
Protection and Control Subcommittee
(SPCS) performed a technical study ‘‘to
determine which devices that respond
to non-electrical quantities should be
addressed within PRC–005 identified
devices.’’ 12 NERC stated that the SPCS
considered a broad range of devices that
respond to non-electrical quantities,
starting with the list of ninety-four
devices included in the IEEE Standard
Electrical Power System Device
Function Numbers, then applying
‘‘multiple layers of analysis to each
device to select the ones that can affect
the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System.’’ 13 The SPCS first determined
that only those devices that initiate
action to clear faults or mitigate
abnormal system conditions present a
risk to the Bulk-Power System. Next, the
SPCS eliminated those devices that
were ‘‘previously considered as a result
of the revised definition of Protection
System or those that are clearly not
protective devices, such as primary
equipment and control devices.’’ 14
Finally, the SPCS conducted an indepth analysis of the remaining devices,
and concluded that only one category—
sudden pressure relays that are utilized
in a trip application—should be
included in the revised PRC–005–4.
8. NERC also explained that the SPCS
developed a Supplemental Report in
response to comments and questions
from the Commission staff about its
initial recommendations. These
comments and questions focused on
whether PRC–005 should include
turbine generator vibration monitors
and circuit breaker arc extinguishing
systems.15 The SPCS Supplemental
Report, issued on October 31, 2014,
changes in gas pressure, oil pressure, or oil flow
that are indicative of faults within the transformer
equipment.’’ Id. at 13. NERC noted that in addition
to detecting faults, certain sudden pressure relays
can trip the associated transformer circuitry in
response to the fault conditions.
11 Id. at 3–4.
12 Id. at 4.
13 Id. at 10.
14 Id.
15 NERC Petition at 11, Ex. E (NERC SPCS,
Sudden Pressure Relays and Other Devices that
Respond to Non-Electrical Quantities:
Supplemental Information to Support Project 2007–
17.3: Protection System Maintenance and Testing
(Oct. 31, 2014) (SPCS Supplemental Report)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
examined these two kinds of devices
and provided information on events
during which these devices operated or
failed to operate. The Supplemental
Report concluded that neither device
affected the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System.
9. NERC stated that the standard
drafting team that was tasked with
developing the modifications to PRC–
005 in response to Order No. 758
adopted the SPCS Report’s
recommendations, both as to the scope
of additional relays included and as to
the required minimum maintenance
activities and maximum maintenance
intervals for these relays.
10. NERC maintained in its petition
that Reliability Standard PRC–005–4
will enhance reliability by extending the
coverage of an applicable entity’s
protection system maintenance program
to include sudden pressure relaying
components. NERC further maintained
that the proposed standard satisfies the
Commission’s concerns as raised in
Order No. 758 ‘‘by including . . .
sudden pressure relays that detect [a]
fault on Bulk-Power System transformer
equipment and trip in response to fault
conditions, as recommended by the
SPCS Report.’’ 16
11. NERC explained that Reliability
Standard PRC–005–4 has been modified
to include ‘‘Sudden Pressure Relaying’’
devices (newly-defined) as part of an
applicable entity’s protection system
maintenance program.17 NERC further
explained that Reliability Standard
PRC–005–4’s maintenance requirements
would apply to a sudden pressure relay
that trips an interrupting device to
isolate the equipment it is monitoring,
but that it ‘‘does not include other nonelectric sensing devices, pressure relays
that only initiate an alarm, or pressure
relief devices.’’ 18 In addition, NERC
explained that the revised standard
replaces the term ‘‘Special Protection
System’’ with the term ‘‘Remedial
Action Scheme,’’ to align the standard
with NERC’s employment of the latter
term moving forward, and revises
Applicability section 4.2.6.1 to address
how the largest bulk electric system
generating unit would be determined in
circumstances involving a Reserve
Sharing Group.
12. NERC’s proposed implementation
plan for PRC–005–4 incorporates the
phased-in implementation period
Petition at 12.
also proposed to modify the definitions
of Protection System Maintenance Program,
Component Type, Component, and Countable Event
to reflect the addition of sudden pressure relays to
the scope of a required maintenance program. NERC
Petition at 15–16.
18 Id. at 18.
57527
approved for PRC–005–2, which has a
twelve-year phase-in period, and adds
compliance dates for the new
requirements for applicable sudden
pressure relays. NERC asked that PRC–
005–4 become effective the first day of
the first calendar quarter following
Commission approval. Reliability
Standard PRC–005–3 would be retired
immediately prior to PRC–005–4
becoming effective.
13. NERC explained that the evidence
retention period for PRC–005–4 is
shorter than that required in the
preceding versions of the standard, as it
requires entities to maintain records for
one maintenance cycle, rather than two
cycles, if the interval of the maintenance
activity is longer than the audit cycle.
For maintenance activities where the
interval is shorter than the audit cycle,
documentation is to be retained for all
maintenance activities since the
previous audit.
14. Finally, NERC stated that the
violation risk factors proposed in PRC–
005–4 track those in previous versions
of the standard, and that the violation
severity levels have been revised to
include the additional component
(sudden pressure relays) in a manner
consistent with the approach taken for
PRC–005–3.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
15. On April 22, 2015, the
Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)
proposing to approve Reliability
Standard PRC–005–4, along with the
new definition of Sudden Pressure
Relaying, the four revised definitions
referenced in the standard, and the
assigned violation risk factors and
violation severity levels.19 The
Commission agreed with NERC that the
identified sudden pressure relays
should be included in an adequate
protection system maintenance
program, and stated its belief that
inclusion of these devices in such a
maintenance program would enhance
reliability.20 However, the Commission
also noted its continuing concern that
‘‘misoperation of other types of nonelectrical sensing relays or devices, such
as pressure sensing devices associated
with air blast or SF6 circuit breaker arc
extinguishing systems, could affect the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power
System.’’ 21 While the Commission did
16 NERC
17 NERC
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19 Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and
Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance Reliability
Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR
22444 (Apr. 22, 2015), 151 FERC ¶ 61,026, (2015)
(NOPR).
20 Id. PP 15–16.
21 Id. P 17.
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
57528
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 185 / Thursday, September 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
not propose any revisions to the
standard based on these concerns, it
noted its expectation that Commission
staff would continue to explore the
issue with NERC.22
16. Comments on the NOPR were
filed by NERC, the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI), the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA), Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), Southern Company Services, Inc.
(Southern Companies), and Eric S.
Morris. Dominion Resources Services,
Inc. filed a motion to intervene in this
rulemaking, but did not file substantive
comments. Ameren submitted late-filed
comments on August 31, 2015.
II. Discussion
17. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of
the FPA, the Commission approves
Reliability Standard PRC–005–4, as well
as the new definition of Sudden
Pressure Relaying, the four revised
definitions referenced in the proposed
standard, the assigned violation risk
factors and violation severity levels, and
the proposed implementation plan (as
discussed further below). We find that
Reliability Standard PRC–005–4 will
enhance reliability by requiring the
inclusion of certain sudden pressure
relays utilized in a trip application as
part of the protection system
maintenance program, and by requiring
entities to undertake minimum required
maintenance activities at maximum
defined maintenance intervals.
Moreover, we note that all of the
commenters that addressed the issue
support approval of PRC–005–4, as well
as the associated definitions and
violation risk factors and violation
severity levels.23
18. Below we discuss the following
matters: (1) continued assessment of
reliability gaps associated with nonelectrical sensing devices; and (2)
alignment of implementation plans with
other versions of PRC–005.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22 Id.
23 One commenter, Eric S. Morris, does not
directly address the Commission’s proposed
approval of PRC–005–4, but instead raises generic
questions concerning the severity of fines imposed
by NERC, and the lack of a cost-benefit analysis to
determine whether reliability or security have
improved following NERC’s certification as the
ERO. Because Mr. Morris has not raised any issues
relevant to this rulemaking, we will not address his
comments further here, but note that the
Commission recently addressed issues related to
NERC’s overall performance and continued
certification as the ERO in its Order on the Electric
Reliability Organization’s Five-Year Performance
Assessment. See North American Electric Reliability
Corp., 149 FERC ¶ 61,141 (2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
A. Continued Assessment of NonElectrical Sensing Devices NOPR
19. The Commission indicated in the
NOPR that it continued to have some
concern ‘‘that the misoperation of other
types of non-electrical sensing relays or
devices, such as pressure sensing
devices associated with air blast or SF6
circuit breaker arc extinguishing
systems, could affect the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System.’’ 24
While the Commission recognized that
the SPCS Report found no situations ‘‘in
which misoperation of a density switch
or sensor [i.e., pressure sensing device]
in response to a system disturbance had
contributed to a cascading event,’’ the
Commission nevertheless noted its
expectation that Commission staff
would continue to explore the issue
with NERC. The Commission pointed
out that NERC’s 2013 and 2014 State of
Reliability reports indicated ‘‘that AC
substation equipment failures remain
among the leading causes of Bulk Power
System problems.’’ 25
Comments
20. NERC agrees with the
Commission’s proposal to continue to
work with Commission staff ‘‘to explore
misoperations of particular types of
non-electrical sensing relays or devices
. . . to assess the impact of this
equipment on the reliable operation of
the Bulk-Power System.’’ 26 While EEI
supports NERC’s commitment to
continue to examine the misoperations
issue, EEI maintains that the SPCS
Report provided a ‘‘comprehensive and
thorough response to the Commission’s
concerns’’ as set out in Order No. 758,
and asks that the Commission not issue
any further directives or modifications
related to PRC–005 at this time.27
21. With respect to the Commission’s
expressed concern regarding density
switches or sensors, EEI notes that the
SPCS report found no operating
experience in which misoperation of
such a device contributed to a cascading
event, and further found that ‘‘density
switches typically respond to an
abnormal equipment condition and
take[] action to protect the equipment
from excessive loss of life rather than for
the purpose of initiating fault clearing or
mitigating an abnormal system
condition to support reliable operation
of the Bulk-Power System.’’ 28 EEI also
24 NOPR,
Commission Determination
22. As proposed in the NOPR, we
approve Reliability Standard PRC–005–
4 without any directives or
modifications. As we stated in the
NOPR, we find the proposed addition to
the standard of those sudden pressure
relays identified by the SPCS Report as
potentially having an impact on the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System
sufficient to address the concerns we
raised in Order No. 758 at this time.
23. We decline to make any further
findings, as EEI suggests, as to the
comprehensiveness of the SPCS Report
or otherwise take a position on whether
a maintenance reliability gap currently
exists with respect to non-electrical
sensing devices. Instead, we
acknowledge NERC’s agreement to
continue to work with Commission staff
to explore and assess the misoperations
of particular types of non-electrical
sensing relays or devices in relation to
the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power
System. As with any aspect of NERC’s
and the Commission’s reliability
oversight obligations, we expect that
when reliability gaps are identified,
NERC would seek to address each gap
through modification of a Reliability
Standard or other appropriate means.
B. Aligning PRC–005 Implementation
Plans NOPR
24. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to approve NERC’s
implementation plan for PRC–005–4,
which incorporates the phased-in
implementation period approved for
PRC–005–2, with additional compliance
dates for applicable sudden pressure
relays. The Commission also proposed
151 FERC ¶ 61,026 at P 17.
25 Id.
26 NERC
Comments at 2.
27 EEI Comments at 4–5.
28 Id. at 3 (quoting Consideration of Comments:
Project 2007–17.3 Protection System Maintenance
and Testing (PRC–005–X) (October 20, 2014) https://
www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/
PO 00000
states that NERC’s 2014 AC Substation
Equipment Failure Report supports
EEI’s position that no maintenance gap
exists with respect to density switches,
as the report found that although
‘‘failures of some of these devices may
result in a breaker tripping, they are
more properly considered as control
failures, and typically are not associated
with increased transmission outage
severity.’’ 29 Finally, EEI states that
NERC’s 2015 State of Reliability Report
provides ‘‘no indication that these
devices have been implicated or
otherwise identified as having any
contributing factor in affecting reliable
of operation of the Bulk-Power
System.’’ 30
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Prjct200717_3PrtctnSstmMntnceANDTstnPhs3/
Project_2007-17.3_PRC-005-4_Summaryof_Comments_20140930.pdf).
29 Id. at 4 (citing AC Substation Equipment
Failure Report, NERC ACSEFT, December 2014,
Circuit Breaker, Relay/Trip Coil, p. 10).
30 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 185 / Thursday, September 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
to approve NERC’s proposed effective
date for PRC–005–4, which would go
into effect on the first day of the first
calendar quarter following Commission
approval.
Comments
25. NRECA, Southern Companies,
TVA, and Ameren, who otherwise
support approval of PRC–005–4, ask the
Commission to consider rejecting
NERC’s proposed implementation plan
for the revised standard, and to instead
consider postponing the start dates for
this and earlier versions of the standard.
These commenters explain that several
versions of PRC–005 have recently been
approved or are under development,
and that, as a result, ‘‘implementation of
the various versions of PRC–005 will
burden the industry in the continued
need to modify associated maintenance
and testing programs.’’ 31 Similarly, the
Southern Companies ‘‘join in the
concern that the implementation of
these various PRC–005 versions risk
burdening the industry with the need to
continuously modify associated
maintenance and testing programs to
track the implementation of the
associated various timelines, requiring
additional costs and multiple revisions
to their Protection System Maintenance
Programs within a very short period of
time, likely resulting in unnecessary
expenditures for the sake of compliance
and not for reliability improvements.’’ 32
26. NRECA asks the Commission to
consider two proposed approaches to
allow for the alignment of
implementation schedules for the
revised version of PRC–005:
1. Postpone implementation of PRC–005–3,
PRC–005–3(i), PRC–005–4 and PRC–005–5 to
coincide with the beginning of
implementation of PRC–005–6.
2. Defer action on PRC–005–3(i), PRC–005–
3(ii), PRC–005–4 and PRC–005–5 to be
considered concurrently with PRC–005–6.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Both TVA and Southern Companies
support NRECA’s proposal to postpone
implementation of all yet-to-be
implemented versions of PRC–005 to
align with the beginning of
implementation of PRC–005–6 (i.e., the
last PRC–005 revision under
development).
Commission Determination
27. We decline, without prejudice, to
postpone the proposed start date for
implementation of PRC–005–4, or to
alter the already-approved
implementation plans and start dates for
PRC–005–3. While we are sympathetic
to commenters’ concerns about the
31 NRECA
Comments at 3.
32 Southern Companies Comments at 6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
several versions of PRC–005 that have
been or may be going into effect in a
relatively short period, we are reluctant
to consider postponing implementation
of an approved standard (PRC–005–3) or
deferring consideration of an otherwise
beneficial standard (PRC–005–4) based
on prospective versions of the standard
that have yet to be filed. Thus, while we
are aware that additional versions of the
standard are being developed,33 we
cannot accurately predict when those
versions will come before us and cannot
properly evaluate the impact of
postponing implementation of the two
most recent versions of the standard.
Accordingly, we decline without
prejudice the requests pertaining to the
implementation plans and start dates for
PRC–005.
III. Information Collection Statement
28. The following collection of
information contained in this Final Rule
is subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).34 OMB’s
regulations require approval of certain
information collection requirements
imposed by agency rules.35 Upon
approval of a collection(s) of
information, OMB will assign an OMB
control number and an expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of a rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these
collections of information unless the
collections of information display a
valid OMB control number.
29. The Commission solicited
comments on the need for and purpose
of the information contained in
Reliability Standard PRC–005–4,
including whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of
the burden estimates, ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected or retained,
and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents’ burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques. The
Commission received no comments
regarding the need for the information
collection or the burden estimates
33 We note that NERC recently posted a draft
version of PRC–005–6 for balloting, which includes
a proposed implementation plan that would make
all versions of PRC–005, from version 3 onward,
effective on the same day PRC–005–6 becomes
effective. See Implementation Plan: Project 2007–
17.4 PRC–005 FERC Order No. 803 Directive PRC–
005–6, available at https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/
Project%20201505%20PRC005%20Order
%20No%20803%20Directives%20DL/PRC-005-6_
Implementation_Plan_clean_2015Jul24.pdf.
34 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
35 5 CFR 1320.11 (2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57529
associated with PRC–005–4 as described
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
30. The Final Rule approves
Reliability Standard PRC–005–4, which
will replace PRC–005–3 (Protection
System and Automatic Reclosing
Maintenance). The Reliability Standard
expands the existing standard to cover
sudden pressure relays that meet certain
criteria, thereby imposing mandatory
minimum maintenance activities and
maximum maintenance intervals for the
applicable relays. Because the specific
requirements were designed to reflect
common industry practice, entities are
not expected to experience a meaningful
change in actual maintenance and
documentation practices. However, each
applicable entity will have to perform a
one-time review of sudden pressure
relays that detect rapid changes in gas
pressure, oil pressure, or oil flow that
are indicative of faults within
transformer equipment, and, if it has
applicable sudden pressure relay
devices, review current maintenance
programs to ensure that they meet the
requirements of proposed standard
PRC–005–4. Accordingly, all additional
information collection costs are
expected to be limited to the first year
of implementation of the revised
standard.
31. Reliability Standard PRC–005–4
reduces the evidence retention
requirements approved in previouslyapproved versions of the standard, and
now requires entities to maintain
documentation of maintenance
activities for only one maintenance
cycle (a maximum of twelve years) if the
maintenance interval is longer than the
audit cycle. For maintenance activities
where the interval is shorter than the
audit cycle, documentation is to be
retained for all maintenance activities
since the previous audit. While the
potential data retention requirement
exceeds the three-year period that is
routinely allowed for regulations
requiring record retention under the
OMB regulations implementing the
PRA,36 the maximum evidence
retention period has been reduced from
24 years to a maximum of 12 years as
a result of the Commission’s prior
request for comment on the
reasonableness of the evidence retention
period in earlier versions of the
standard, and appears to reflect the
minimum time needed to ensure
compliance with maintenance
requirements.37
32. Public Reporting Burden: Affected
entities must perform a one-time review
36 See
37 See
5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(iv).
Order No. 803, 150 FERC ¶ 61,039 at PP
37–38.
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
57530
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 185 / Thursday, September 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Reliability Standard PRC–005–4, the
entity will have to make certain
adjustments to the program.
33. Our estimate below assumes that
the number of unique applicable entities
(distribution providers, generator
owners and transmission owners, or a
of their existing sudden pressure relay
schemes and associated maintenance
programs to ensure that the programs
contain at a minimum the activities
required by Reliability Standard PRC–
005–4. If the existing maintenance
program does not meet the criteria in
combination of those) in the United
States is approximately 1,287 38 and the
time required to do the one-time review
will be approximately eight hours. The
estimate further assumes that the onetime review would be performed by an
engineer at a rate of $65.34 per hour.39
RM15–9–000 (MANDATORY RELIABILITY STANDARDS: RELIABILITY STANDARD PRC–005–4)
Number of
respondents
Annual
number of
responses per
respondent
Total number
of responses
Average
burden (hours)
& cost per
response
Total annual
burden hours
& total annual
cost
Cost per
respondent
($)
(1)
(2)
(1)*(2)=(3)
(4)
(3)*(4)=(5)
(5)÷(1)
One-time review of sudden pressure
relay maintenance program and adjustment ................................................
1,287
1
1,287
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office
of the Executive Director, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426
[Attention: Ellen Brown, email:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202)
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
36. Comments concerning the
information collections approved in this
Final Rule and the associated burden
estimates should be sent to the
Commission in this docket and may also
be sent to the Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security
reasons, comments should be sent by
email to OMB at the following email
address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Please reference the docket number of
this Final Rule (Docket No. RM15–9–
000) or the collection number (FERC–
725P1) in your submission.
8
$523
10,296
$673,101
$523
combination thereof). Comparison of the
applicable entities with FERC’s small
business data indicates that
approximately 789 of the 1,287 entities
are small entities, or 61.31 percent of
the respondents affected by this
Reliability Standard.42
38. On average, each small entity
affected may have a one-time cost of
$523, representing a one-time review of
the program for each entity, consisting
of 8 man-hours at $65.34/hour, as
explained above in the information
collection statement. We do not
consider this cost to be a significant
economic impact for small entities.
Accordingly, the Commission certifies
that Reliability Standard PRC–005–4
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Title: FERC–725P1,40 Mandatory
Reliability Standards: Reliability
Standard PRC–005–4.
Action: Proposed Collection of
Information.
OMB Control No: To be determined.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit and not-for-profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One time.
Necessity of the Information:
Reliability Standard PRC–005–4 is part
of the implementation of the
Congressional mandate of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards to better ensure the reliability
of the nation’s Bulk-Power System.
Specifically, Reliability Standard PRC–
005–4 helps to ensure that transmission
and generation protection systems
affecting the reliability of the BulkPower System are maintained and
tested.
34. Internal review: The Commission
has reviewed Reliability Standard PRC–
005–4 and made a determination that
approval of this standard is necessary to
implement section 215 of the FPA. The
Commission has assured itself, by
means of its internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the
burden estimates associated with the
information requirements.
35. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal
37. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 41 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Reliability Standard PRC–005–
4 is expected to impose an additional,
one-time burden on 1,287 entities
(distribution providers, generator
owners, and transmission owners, or a
39. 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.43 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
38 This figure reflects the generator owners,
transmission owners, and distribution providers
identified in the NERC Compliance Registry as of
February 27, 2015.
39 The figure is taken from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_
22.htm; Occupation Code: 17–2071.
40 The FERC–725P1 is a temporary collection
established so the Commission can submit this
proposed rulemaking to OMB on time. However,
the burden contained in this rulemaking should be
contained in FERC–725G (OMB Control No. 1902–
0252). Commission staff plans eventually to move
this burden to FERC–725G.
41 5 U.S.C. 601–12. The number of small
distribution providers required to comply with
PRC–005–4 may decrease significantly. In March
2015, the Commission approved revisions to the
NERC Rules of Procedure to implement NERC’s
‘‘risk based registration’’ program, which raised the
registry threshold for distribution providers from a
25 MW to 75 MW peak load. North American
Electric Reliability Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2015).
42 The Small Business Administration sets the
threshold for what constitutes a small business.
Public utilities may fall under one of several
different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company’s number of employees,
including affiliates, the parent company, and
subsidiaries. For the analysis in this Final Rule, we
are using a 500 employee threshold for each
affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric
Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code
221121).
43 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
V. Environmental Analysis
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 185 / Thursday, September 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.44 The
actions taken herein fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
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 (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 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 of this
document excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field.
42. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s online support at 202–
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the public reference room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Commission’s public reference room
at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By the Commission.
Issued: September 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–24280 Filed 9–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–1282]
National Environmental Policy Act;
Environmental Assessments for
Tobacco Products; Categorical
Exclusions
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
SUMMARY:
44 18
CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Sep 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
1969 (NEPA) and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Regulations Implementing NEPA (CEQ
regulations), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
issuing a final rule to revise its NEPA
implementing regulations to provide
categorical exclusions for certain actions
related to substantial equivalence (SE)
reports, SE exemption requests, and
tobacco product applications, and the
rescission (order withdrawing an order)
or suspension of orders regarding the
marketing of tobacco products under the
Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control
Act). FDA is also amending its NEPA
implementing regulations to include
tobacco products, where appropriate, in
light of its new authority under the
Tobacco Control Act.
DATES: This rule is effective October 26,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gerie Voss or Katherine Collins, Center
for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, Document Control
Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20993–0002, 877–287–1373; gerie.voss@
fda.hhs.gov or katherine.collins@
fda.hhs.gov.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Final Rule
This final rule will allow certain
classes of actions on tobacco product
marketing applications to be excluded
from the requirements to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) or an
environmental impact statement (EIS).
FDA is also amending its NEPA
implementing regulations to include
tobacco products, where appropriate, in
light of its new authority under the
Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111–31).
Legal Authority
FDA is issuing this final rule under
NEPA and CEQ regulations (42 U.S.C.
4332(2); 40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508)
requiring FDA to assess, as an integral
part of its decisionmaking process, the
environmental impacts of any proposed
Federal action to ascertain the
environmental consequences of that
action on the quality of the human
environment and to ensure that the
interested and affected public is
appropriately informed. FDA
regulations governing its responsibilities
under NEPA are codified at part 25 (21
CFR part 25), and CEQ regulations are
codified at 40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508.
Summary of the Major Provisions
This final rule applies to certain
classes of tobacco product-related
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57531
actions including: (1) Issuance of an
order finding a tobacco product
substantially equivalent under section
910(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21
U.S.C. 387j(a)(2)(B)); (2) issuance of an
order finding a tobacco product not
substantially equivalent under section
910(a) of the FD&C Act, denial of a
request for an exemption under 21 CFR
part 1107 (part 1107) from the
requirement of demonstrating
substantial equivalence, issuance of an
order under section 910(c) of the FD&C
Act that a new tobacco product may not
be introduced or delivered for
introduction into interstate commerce,
or issuance of an order under section
911 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387k)
that a modified risk tobacco product
(MRTP) may not be introduced or
delivered for introduction into interstate
commerce; (3) rescission (order
withdrawing an order) or temporary
suspension of an order authorizing the
marketing of a new tobacco product
under section 910 of the FD&C Act; (4)
rescission of an order authorizing the
marketing of a MRTP under section 911
of the FD&C Act; and (5) rescission of
an order granting an exemption request
under § 1107.1 (21 CFR 1107.1).
This final rule provides that certain
classes of actions are categorically
excluded from the requirement to
prepare an EA or EIS unless
extraordinary circumstances are present
such that the specific proposed action
may have the potential to significantly
affect the quality of the human
environment. The rule also amends
FDA’s NEPA implementing regulations
to include tobacco products in sections
dealing with statements about
disclosure regarding certain FDA
actions and preparation of an EIS.
I. Background and Legal Authority
NEPA and CEQ regulations require
each Federal Agency to assess, as an
integral part of its decisionmaking
process, the environmental impacts of
any proposed Federal action to ascertain
the environmental consequences of that
action on the quality of the human
environment and to ensure that the
interested and affected public is
appropriately informed (42 U.S.C.
4332(2); 40 CFR 1506.6). CEQ is
responsible for CEQ regulations and for
overseeing Federal efforts to comply
with NEPA. Both FDA and CEQ have
issued regulations governing Agency
obligations and responsibilities under
NEPA. FDA regulations are codified at
part 25 and CEQ regulations are codified
at 40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508.
CEQ regulations, which are binding
on all Federal Agencies, establish
E:\FR\FM\24SER1.SGM
24SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 185 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57526-57531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24280]
[[Page 57526]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM15-9-000, Order No. 813]
Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure
Relaying Maintenance Reliability Standard
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission approves a
revised Reliability Standard, PRC-005-4 (Protection System, Automatic
Reclosing and Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance), developed and
submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC). In addition, the Commission approves one new definition and
four revised definitions referenced in the proposed Reliability
Standard, as well as the assigned violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, and the associated implementation plan. Consistent
with Order No. 758, the proposed Reliability Standard requires
applicable entities to test and maintain certain sudden pressure relays
as part of a protection system maintenance program.
DATES: This rule will become effective November 23, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Bradish (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (301) 665-1391, Tom.Bradish@ferc.gov.
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-6362, julie.greenisen@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Order No. 813
Final Rule (Issued September 17, 2015)
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves a revised Reliability Standard, PRC-005-4
(Protection System, Automatic Reclosing and Sudden Pressure Relaying
Maintenance), developed and submitted by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). In addition, the Commission approves
one new definition and four revised definitions referenced in the
Reliability Standard, as well as the assigned violation risk factors
and violation severity levels, and the proposed implementation plan.
Consistent with Order No. 758,\2\ Reliability Standard PRC-005-4
requires applicable entities to test and maintain certain sudden
pressure relays as part of a protection system maintenance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
\2\ Interpretation of Protection System Reliability Standard,
Order No. 758, 138 FERC ] 61,094, clarification denied, 139 FERC ]
61,227 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval.\3\ Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight,
or by the Commission independently.\4\ In 2006, the Commission
certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 16 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d).
\4\ See id. at 824o(e).
\5\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In 2007, the Commission approved an initial set of Reliability
Standards submitted by NERC, including initial versions of four
protection system and load-shedding-related maintenance standards: PRC-
005-1, PRC-008-0, PRC-011-0, and PRC-017-0.\6\ In addition, the
Commission directed NERC to develop a revision to PRC-005-1
incorporating a maximum time interval during which to conduct
maintenance and testing of protection systems, and to consider
combining into one standard the various maintenance and testing
requirements for all of the maintenance and testing-related standards
for protection systems, underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) equipment
and undervoltage load shedding (UVLS) equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 1474, 1492, 1497,
and 1514, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In February 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 758 in
response to NERC's request for approval of its interpretation of
Requirement R1 of the then-current version of the protection system
maintenance standard, Reliability Standard PRC-005-1. In that order,
the Commission accepted NERC's proposed interpretation of Requirement
R1, which provided guidance on the types of protection system equipment
to which the Reliability Standard did or did not apply. In reviewing
NERC's interpretation, however, the Commission raised several concerns
about potential gaps in the coverage of PRC-005-1, including a concern
that the standard as written may not include all components that serve
in some protective capacity.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Order No. 758, 138 FERC ] 61,094 at P 12. NERC has been
addressing the concerns stated in Order No. 758 through a series of
projects modifying the PRC-005 standard. See Protection System
Maintenance Reliability Standard, Order No. 793, 145 FERC ] 61,253
(2013) (approving Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, which incorporated
specific minimum maintenance activities and maximum time intervals
for maintenance of individual components of the protection systems
and load shedding equipment affecting the bulk electric system);
Protection System Maintenance Reliability Standard, Order No.
803,150 FERC ] 61,039 (2015) (approving PRC-005-3 and directing NERC
to develop a modification to include maintenance and testing of
supervisory relays associated with relevant autoreclosing relay
schemes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NERC Petition and Proposed Standard PRC-005-4
5. On December 18, 2014, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval
of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-4, which would add to the
applicability of Reliability Standard PRC-005-3 those sudden pressure
relays that NERC has identified as having a potential effect on the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.\8\ NERC stated that these
revisions were developed to satisfy NERC's commitment to develop
modifications to PRC-005 that would address the Commission's concerns,
as set out in Order No. 758, regarding the lack of maintenance
requirements for non-electrical sensing relays (such as sudden pressure
relays) that could affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power
System.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 is not attached to the Final
Rule; however, the complete text of the Reliability Standard is
available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in
Docket No. RM15-9-000 and is posted on NERC's Web site, available
at: https://www.nerc.com.
\9\ See NERC Petition at 3, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NERC stated that sudden pressure relays are ``designed to
quickly detect faults on the Bulk-Power System transformer equipment
that may remain undetected by other Protection Systems, and can operate
to limit any potential damage on the equipment.'' \10\ NERC
[[Page 57527]]
stated that the ``misoperation of sudden pressure relays that initiate
tripping in response to fault conditions can impact the reliability of
the Bulk-Power System,'' and accordingly proposed revisions to PRC-005-
3 that will require entities to document and implement programs for
maintenance of applicable sudden pressure relays.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 3. NERC described sudden pressure relays as relays
which ``respond to changes in pressure and are utilized as
protective devices for power transformers,'' and which may ``detect
rapid changes in gas pressure, oil pressure, or oil flow that are
indicative of faults within the transformer equipment.'' Id. at 13.
NERC noted that in addition to detecting faults, certain sudden
pressure relays can trip the associated transformer circuitry in
response to the fault conditions.
\11\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. NERC explained that, consistent with Order No. 758, NERC's
System Protection and Control Subcommittee (SPCS) performed a technical
study ``to determine which devices that respond to non-electrical
quantities should be addressed within PRC-005 identified devices.''
\12\ NERC stated that the SPCS considered a broad range of devices that
respond to non-electrical quantities, starting with the list of ninety-
four devices included in the IEEE Standard Electrical Power System
Device Function Numbers, then applying ``multiple layers of analysis to
each device to select the ones that can affect the reliability of the
Bulk-Power System.'' \13\ The SPCS first determined that only those
devices that initiate action to clear faults or mitigate abnormal
system conditions present a risk to the Bulk-Power System. Next, the
SPCS eliminated those devices that were ``previously considered as a
result of the revised definition of Protection System or those that are
clearly not protective devices, such as primary equipment and control
devices.'' \14\ Finally, the SPCS conducted an in-depth analysis of the
remaining devices, and concluded that only one category--sudden
pressure relays that are utilized in a trip application--should be
included in the revised PRC-005-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. at 4.
\13\ Id. at 10.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NERC also explained that the SPCS developed a Supplemental
Report in response to comments and questions from the Commission staff
about its initial recommendations. These comments and questions focused
on whether PRC-005 should include turbine generator vibration monitors
and circuit breaker arc extinguishing systems.\15\ The SPCS
Supplemental Report, issued on October 31, 2014, examined these two
kinds of devices and provided information on events during which these
devices operated or failed to operate. The Supplemental Report
concluded that neither device affected the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NERC Petition at 11, Ex. E (NERC SPCS, Sudden Pressure
Relays and Other Devices that Respond to Non-Electrical Quantities:
Supplemental Information to Support Project 2007-17.3: Protection
System Maintenance and Testing (Oct. 31, 2014) (SPCS Supplemental
Report)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NERC stated that the standard drafting team that was tasked with
developing the modifications to PRC-005 in response to Order No. 758
adopted the SPCS Report's recommendations, both as to the scope of
additional relays included and as to the required minimum maintenance
activities and maximum maintenance intervals for these relays.
10. NERC maintained in its petition that Reliability Standard PRC-
005-4 will enhance reliability by extending the coverage of an
applicable entity's protection system maintenance program to include
sudden pressure relaying components. NERC further maintained that the
proposed standard satisfies the Commission's concerns as raised in
Order No. 758 ``by including . . . sudden pressure relays that detect
[a] fault on Bulk-Power System transformer equipment and trip in
response to fault conditions, as recommended by the SPCS Report.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NERC Petition at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 has been
modified to include ``Sudden Pressure Relaying'' devices (newly-
defined) as part of an applicable entity's protection system
maintenance program.\17\ NERC further explained that Reliability
Standard PRC-005-4's maintenance requirements would apply to a sudden
pressure relay that trips an interrupting device to isolate the
equipment it is monitoring, but that it ``does not include other non-
electric sensing devices, pressure relays that only initiate an alarm,
or pressure relief devices.'' \18\ In addition, NERC explained that the
revised standard replaces the term ``Special Protection System'' with
the term ``Remedial Action Scheme,'' to align the standard with NERC's
employment of the latter term moving forward, and revises Applicability
section 4.2.6.1 to address how the largest bulk electric system
generating unit would be determined in circumstances involving a
Reserve Sharing Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NERC also proposed to modify the definitions of Protection
System Maintenance Program, Component Type, Component, and Countable
Event to reflect the addition of sudden pressure relays to the scope
of a required maintenance program. NERC Petition at 15-16.
\18\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. NERC's proposed implementation plan for PRC-005-4 incorporates
the phased-in implementation period approved for PRC-005-2, which has a
twelve-year phase-in period, and adds compliance dates for the new
requirements for applicable sudden pressure relays. NERC asked that
PRC-005-4 become effective the first day of the first calendar quarter
following Commission approval. Reliability Standard PRC-005-3 would be
retired immediately prior to PRC-005-4 becoming effective.
13. NERC explained that the evidence retention period for PRC-005-4
is shorter than that required in the preceding versions of the
standard, as it requires entities to maintain records for one
maintenance cycle, rather than two cycles, if the interval of the
maintenance activity is longer than the audit cycle. For maintenance
activities where the interval is shorter than the audit cycle,
documentation is to be retained for all maintenance activities since
the previous audit.
14. Finally, NERC stated that the violation risk factors proposed
in PRC-005-4 track those in previous versions of the standard, and that
the violation severity levels have been revised to include the
additional component (sudden pressure relays) in a manner consistent
with the approach taken for PRC-005-3.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
15. On April 22, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-005-4,
along with the new definition of Sudden Pressure Relaying, the four
revised definitions referenced in the standard, and the assigned
violation risk factors and violation severity levels.\19\ The
Commission agreed with NERC that the identified sudden pressure relays
should be included in an adequate protection system maintenance
program, and stated its belief that inclusion of these devices in such
a maintenance program would enhance reliability.\20\ However, the
Commission also noted its continuing concern that ``misoperation of
other types of non-electrical sensing relays or devices, such as
pressure sensing devices associated with air blast or SF6 circuit
breaker arc extinguishing systems, could affect the reliable operation
of the Bulk-Power System.'' \21\ While the Commission did
[[Page 57528]]
not propose any revisions to the standard based on these concerns, it
noted its expectation that Commission staff would continue to explore
the issue with NERC.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure
Relaying Maintenance Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 80 FR 22444 (Apr. 22, 2015), 151 FERC ] 61,026, (2015)
(NOPR).
\20\ Id. PP 15-16.
\21\ Id. P 17.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Comments on the NOPR were filed by NERC, the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Southern Company Services,
Inc. (Southern Companies), and Eric S. Morris. Dominion Resources
Services, Inc. filed a motion to intervene in this rulemaking, but did
not file substantive comments. Ameren submitted late-filed comments on
August 31, 2015.
II. Discussion
17. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission
approves Reliability Standard PRC-005-4, as well as the new definition
of Sudden Pressure Relaying, the four revised definitions referenced in
the proposed standard, the assigned violation risk factors and
violation severity levels, and the proposed implementation plan (as
discussed further below). We find that Reliability Standard PRC-005-4
will enhance reliability by requiring the inclusion of certain sudden
pressure relays utilized in a trip application as part of the
protection system maintenance program, and by requiring entities to
undertake minimum required maintenance activities at maximum defined
maintenance intervals. Moreover, we note that all of the commenters
that addressed the issue support approval of PRC-005-4, as well as the
associated definitions and violation risk factors and violation
severity levels.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ One commenter, Eric S. Morris, does not directly address
the Commission's proposed approval of PRC-005-4, but instead raises
generic questions concerning the severity of fines imposed by NERC,
and the lack of a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether
reliability or security have improved following NERC's certification
as the ERO. Because Mr. Morris has not raised any issues relevant to
this rulemaking, we will not address his comments further here, but
note that the Commission recently addressed issues related to NERC's
overall performance and continued certification as the ERO in its
Order on the Electric Reliability Organization's Five-Year
Performance Assessment. See North American Electric Reliability
Corp., 149 FERC ] 61,141 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Below we discuss the following matters: (1) continued
assessment of reliability gaps associated with non-electrical sensing
devices; and (2) alignment of implementation plans with other versions
of PRC-005.
A. Continued Assessment of Non-Electrical Sensing Devices NOPR
19. The Commission indicated in the NOPR that it continued to have
some concern ``that the misoperation of other types of non-electrical
sensing relays or devices, such as pressure sensing devices associated
with air blast or SF6 circuit breaker arc extinguishing systems, could
affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.'' \24\ While
the Commission recognized that the SPCS Report found no situations ``in
which misoperation of a density switch or sensor [i.e., pressure
sensing device] in response to a system disturbance had contributed to
a cascading event,'' the Commission nevertheless noted its expectation
that Commission staff would continue to explore the issue with NERC.
The Commission pointed out that NERC's 2013 and 2014 State of
Reliability reports indicated ``that AC substation equipment failures
remain among the leading causes of Bulk Power System problems.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NOPR, 151 FERC ] 61,026 at P 17.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
20. NERC agrees with the Commission's proposal to continue to work
with Commission staff ``to explore misoperations of particular types of
non-electrical sensing relays or devices . . . to assess the impact of
this equipment on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.''
\26\ While EEI supports NERC's commitment to continue to examine the
misoperations issue, EEI maintains that the SPCS Report provided a
``comprehensive and thorough response to the Commission's concerns'' as
set out in Order No. 758, and asks that the Commission not issue any
further directives or modifications related to PRC-005 at this
time.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NERC Comments at 2.
\27\ EEI Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. With respect to the Commission's expressed concern regarding
density switches or sensors, EEI notes that the SPCS report found no
operating experience in which misoperation of such a device contributed
to a cascading event, and further found that ``density switches
typically respond to an abnormal equipment condition and take[] action
to protect the equipment from excessive loss of life rather than for
the purpose of initiating fault clearing or mitigating an abnormal
system condition to support reliable operation of the Bulk-Power
System.'' \28\ EEI also states that NERC's 2014 AC Substation Equipment
Failure Report supports EEI's position that no maintenance gap exists
with respect to density switches, as the report found that although
``failures of some of these devices may result in a breaker tripping,
they are more properly considered as control failures, and typically
are not associated with increased transmission outage severity.'' \29\
Finally, EEI states that NERC's 2015 State of Reliability Report
provides ``no indication that these devices have been implicated or
otherwise identified as having any contributing factor in affecting
reliable of operation of the Bulk-Power System.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at 3 (quoting Consideration of Comments: Project 2007-
17.3 Protection System Maintenance and Testing (PRC-005-X) (October
20, 2014) https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Prjct200717_3PrtctnSstmMntnceANDTstnPhs3/Project_2007-17.3_PRC-005-4_Summary-of_Comments_20140930.pdf).
\29\ Id. at 4 (citing AC Substation Equipment Failure Report,
NERC ACSEFT, December 2014, Circuit Breaker, Relay/Trip Coil, p.
10).
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
22. As proposed in the NOPR, we approve Reliability Standard PRC-
005-4 without any directives or modifications. As we stated in the
NOPR, we find the proposed addition to the standard of those sudden
pressure relays identified by the SPCS Report as potentially having an
impact on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System sufficient to
address the concerns we raised in Order No. 758 at this time.
23. We decline to make any further findings, as EEI suggests, as to
the comprehensiveness of the SPCS Report or otherwise take a position
on whether a maintenance reliability gap currently exists with respect
to non-electrical sensing devices. Instead, we acknowledge NERC's
agreement to continue to work with Commission staff to explore and
assess the misoperations of particular types of non-electrical sensing
relays or devices in relation to the reliable operation of the Bulk-
Power System. As with any aspect of NERC's and the Commission's
reliability oversight obligations, we expect that when reliability gaps
are identified, NERC would seek to address each gap through
modification of a Reliability Standard or other appropriate means.
B. Aligning PRC-005 Implementation Plans NOPR
24. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve NERC's
implementation plan for PRC-005-4, which incorporates the phased-in
implementation period approved for PRC-005-2, with additional
compliance dates for applicable sudden pressure relays. The Commission
also proposed
[[Page 57529]]
to approve NERC's proposed effective date for PRC-005-4, which would go
into effect on the first day of the first calendar quarter following
Commission approval.
Comments
25. NRECA, Southern Companies, TVA, and Ameren, who otherwise
support approval of PRC-005-4, ask the Commission to consider rejecting
NERC's proposed implementation plan for the revised standard, and to
instead consider postponing the start dates for this and earlier
versions of the standard. These commenters explain that several
versions of PRC-005 have recently been approved or are under
development, and that, as a result, ``implementation of the various
versions of PRC-005 will burden the industry in the continued need to
modify associated maintenance and testing programs.'' \31\ Similarly,
the Southern Companies ``join in the concern that the implementation of
these various PRC-005 versions risk burdening the industry with the
need to continuously modify associated maintenance and testing programs
to track the implementation of the associated various timelines,
requiring additional costs and multiple revisions to their Protection
System Maintenance Programs within a very short period of time, likely
resulting in unnecessary expenditures for the sake of compliance and
not for reliability improvements.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NRECA Comments at 3.
\32\ Southern Companies Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. NRECA asks the Commission to consider two proposed approaches
to allow for the alignment of implementation schedules for the revised
version of PRC-005:
1. Postpone implementation of PRC-005-3, PRC-005-3(i), PRC-005-4
and PRC-005-5 to coincide with the beginning of implementation of
PRC-005-6.
2. Defer action on PRC-005-3(i), PRC-005-3(ii), PRC-005-4 and
PRC-005-5 to be considered concurrently with PRC-005-6.
Both TVA and Southern Companies support NRECA's proposal to
postpone implementation of all yet-to-be implemented versions of PRC-
005 to align with the beginning of implementation of PRC-005-6 (i.e.,
the last PRC-005 revision under development).
Commission Determination
27. We decline, without prejudice, to postpone the proposed start
date for implementation of PRC-005-4, or to alter the already-approved
implementation plans and start dates for PRC-005-3. While we are
sympathetic to commenters' concerns about the several versions of PRC-
005 that have been or may be going into effect in a relatively short
period, we are reluctant to consider postponing implementation of an
approved standard (PRC-005-3) or deferring consideration of an
otherwise beneficial standard (PRC-005-4) based on prospective versions
of the standard that have yet to be filed. Thus, while we are aware
that additional versions of the standard are being developed,\33\ we
cannot accurately predict when those versions will come before us and
cannot properly evaluate the impact of postponing implementation of the
two most recent versions of the standard. Accordingly, we decline
without prejudice the requests pertaining to the implementation plans
and start dates for PRC-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ We note that NERC recently posted a draft version of PRC-
005-6 for balloting, which includes a proposed implementation plan
that would make all versions of PRC-005, from version 3 onward,
effective on the same day PRC-005-6 becomes effective. See
Implementation Plan: Project 2007-17.4 PRC-005 FERC Order No. 803
Directive PRC-005-6, available at https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20201505%20PRC005%20Order%20No%20803%20Directives%20DL/PRC-005-6_Implementation_Plan_clean_2015Jul24.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Information Collection Statement
28. The following collection of information contained in this Final
Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\34\
OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\35\ Upon approval of a
collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections
of information unless the collections of information display a valid
OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
\35\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. The Commission solicited comments on the need for and purpose
of the information contained in Reliability Standard PRC-005-4,
including whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of automated information techniques. The Commission received no
comments regarding the need for the information collection or the
burden estimates associated with PRC-005-4 as described in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking.
30. The Final Rule approves Reliability Standard PRC-005-4, which
will replace PRC-005-3 (Protection System and Automatic Reclosing
Maintenance). The Reliability Standard expands the existing standard to
cover sudden pressure relays that meet certain criteria, thereby
imposing mandatory minimum maintenance activities and maximum
maintenance intervals for the applicable relays. Because the specific
requirements were designed to reflect common industry practice,
entities are not expected to experience a meaningful change in actual
maintenance and documentation practices. However, each applicable
entity will have to perform a one-time review of sudden pressure relays
that detect rapid changes in gas pressure, oil pressure, or oil flow
that are indicative of faults within transformer equipment, and, if it
has applicable sudden pressure relay devices, review current
maintenance programs to ensure that they meet the requirements of
proposed standard PRC-005-4. Accordingly, all additional information
collection costs are expected to be limited to the first year of
implementation of the revised standard.
31. Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 reduces the evidence retention
requirements approved in previously-approved versions of the standard,
and now requires entities to maintain documentation of maintenance
activities for only one maintenance cycle (a maximum of twelve years)
if the maintenance interval is longer than the audit cycle. For
maintenance activities where the interval is shorter than the audit
cycle, documentation is to be retained for all maintenance activities
since the previous audit. While the potential data retention
requirement exceeds the three-year period that is routinely allowed for
regulations requiring record retention under the OMB regulations
implementing the PRA,\36\ the maximum evidence retention period has
been reduced from 24 years to a maximum of 12 years as a result of the
Commission's prior request for comment on the reasonableness of the
evidence retention period in earlier versions of the standard, and
appears to reflect the minimum time needed to ensure compliance with
maintenance requirements.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(iv).
\37\ See Order No. 803, 150 FERC ] 61,039 at PP 37-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Public Reporting Burden: Affected entities must perform a one-
time review
[[Page 57530]]
of their existing sudden pressure relay schemes and associated
maintenance programs to ensure that the programs contain at a minimum
the activities required by Reliability Standard PRC-005-4. If the
existing maintenance program does not meet the criteria in Reliability
Standard PRC-005-4, the entity will have to make certain adjustments to
the program.
33. Our estimate below assumes that the number of unique applicable
entities (distribution providers, generator owners and transmission
owners, or a combination of those) in the United States is
approximately 1,287 \38\ and the time required to do the one-time
review will be approximately eight hours. The estimate further assumes
that the one-time review would be performed by an engineer at a rate of
$65.34 per hour.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ This figure reflects the generator owners, transmission
owners, and distribution providers identified in the NERC Compliance
Registry as of February 27, 2015.
\39\ The figure is taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17-
2071.
RM15-9-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-005-4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual
Number of Annual number Total number Average burden burden hours & Cost per
respondents of responses of responses (hours) & cost total annual respondent ($)
per respondent per response cost
(1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time review of sudden pressure relay maintenance 1,287 1 1,287 8 10,296 $523
program and adjustment................................. $523 $673,101
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: FERC-725P1,\40\ Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability
Standard PRC-005-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The FERC-725P1 is a temporary collection established so the
Commission can submit this proposed rulemaking to OMB on time.
However, the burden contained in this rulemaking should be contained
in FERC-725G (OMB Control No. 1902-0252). Commission staff plans
eventually to move this burden to FERC-725G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
OMB Control No: To be determined.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One time.
Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 is
part of the implementation of the Congressional mandate of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power
System. Specifically, Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 helps to ensure
that transmission and generation protection systems affecting the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System are maintained and tested.
34. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed Reliability
Standard PRC-005-4 and made a determination that approval of this
standard is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information requirements.
35. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
36. Comments concerning the information collections approved in
this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to
the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the
following email address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference
the docket number of this Final Rule (Docket No. RM15-9-000) or the
collection number (FERC-725P1) in your submission.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
37. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \41\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 is expected to impose an additional,
one-time burden on 1,287 entities (distribution providers, generator
owners, and transmission owners, or a combination thereof). Comparison
of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates
that approximately 789 of the 1,287 entities are small entities, or
61.31 percent of the respondents affected by this Reliability
Standard.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12. The number of small distribution providers
required to comply with PRC-005-4 may decrease significantly. In
March 2015, the Commission approved revisions to the NERC Rules of
Procedure to implement NERC's ``risk based registration'' program,
which raised the registry threshold for distribution providers from
a 25 MW to 75 MW peak load. North American Electric Reliability
Corp., 150 FERC ] 61,213 (2015).
\42\ The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for
what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under
one of several different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates,
the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this Final
Rule, we are using a 500 employee threshold for each affected
entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power
Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. On average, each small entity affected may have a one-time cost
of $523, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity,
consisting of 8 man-hours at $65.34/hour, as explained above in the
information collection statement. We do not consider this cost to be a
significant economic impact for small entities. Accordingly, the
Commission certifies that Reliability Standard PRC-005-4 will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
V. Environmental Analysis
39. 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.\43\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective,
[[Page 57531]]
or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.\44\ The actions taken herein fall within
this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
\44\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (https://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 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 of this document excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field.
42. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's online
support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the public reference room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Commission's public reference room
at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By the Commission.
Issued: September 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24280 Filed 9-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
