Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Reliability Standard, 57704-57709 [2015-24278]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57704
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
and effective date proposed by NERC.
The Commission also approves the
retirement of Reliability Standard PRC–
018–1 due to its consolidation with
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
I. Background
[Docket No. RM15–4–000; Order No. 814]
Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements Reliability Standard
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission approves
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2
(Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements) submitted by the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation. The purpose of Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 is to have
adequate data available to facilitate
analysis of bulk electric system
disturbances.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will
become effective November 24, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juan R. Villar (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Division
of Reliability Standards and Security,
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 536–2930, Juan.Villar@ferc.gov.
Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office
of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8502,
Alan.Rukin@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Order No. 814
Final Rule
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(Issued September 17, 2015)
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) approves Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 (Disturbance
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements).1 The North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO),
submitted Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 for approval. The purpose of
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 is to
have adequate data available to facilitate
analysis of bulk electric system
disturbances. In addition, the
Commission approves the associated
violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, implementation plan,
1 16
U.S.C. 824o.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Sep 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
A. Section 215 and Mandatory
Reliability Standards
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards, subject to Commission
review and approval.2 Once approved,
the Reliability Standards may be
enforced by the ERO subject to
Commission oversight or by the
Commission independently.3 In 2006,
the Commission certified NERC as the
ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.4
B. Order No. 693
3. On March 16, 2007, the
Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability
Standards filed by NERC, including
Reliability Standard PRC–018–1.5
Reliability Standard PRC–018–1
requires the installation of disturbance
monitoring equipment and the reporting
of disturbance data in accordance with
comprehensive requirements.6
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission
determined that proposed Reliability
Standard PRC–002–1 was a ‘‘fill-in-theblank’’ Reliability Standard because it
required Regional Reliability
Organizations to establish requirements
for installation of disturbance
monitoring equipment and report
disturbance data to facilitate analyses of
events and verify system models.7 The
Commission stated that it would not
approve or remand proposed Reliability
Standard PRC–002–1 until NERC
submitted additional necessary
information to the Commission.8
C. NERC Petition and Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2
5. On December 15, 2014, NERC
submitted a petition seeking
Commission approval of proposed
2 Id.
824o(c), (d).
3 Id. 824o(e).
4 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062 (ERO Certification Order), order on
reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006),
order on compliance, 118 FERC ¶ 61,190, order on
reh’g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2007), rev. denied sub
nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir.
2009).
5 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs.
¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120
FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
6 Id. PP 1550–1551.
7 Id. P 1451.
8 Id. P 1456.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2.9 NERC
contended that Reliability Standard
PRC–002–2 is just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. NERC
explained that Reliability Standard
PRC–002–2 consolidates the
requirements of unapproved Reliability
Standard PRC–002–1 and currentlyeffective Reliability Standard PRC–018–
1.10
6. NERC stated that it is important to
monitor and analyze disturbances to
plan and operate the Bulk-Power
System to avoid instability, separation
and cascading failures.11 NERC
maintained that Reliability Standard
PRC–002–2 improves reliability by
providing personnel with necessary data
to enable more effective post event
analysis, which can also be used to
verify system models.12 Moreover,
NERC explained that the Reliability
Standard ‘‘focuses on ensuring that the
requisite data is captured and the
Requirements constitute a results-based
approach to capturing data.’’13
7. NERC stated that, in the United
States, Reliability Standard PRC–002–2
will apply to planning coordinators in
the Eastern Interconnection, planning
coordinators or the reliability
coordinator in the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT)
Interconnection, and the reliability
coordinator in the Western
Interconnection, which are collectively
referred to as ‘‘Responsible Entities.’’
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 will
also apply to transmission owners and
generation owners.
8. NERC stated that Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 includes 12
requirements. Requirement R1 requires
transmission owners: (1) To identify
bulk electric system buses, e.g.,
substations, for which sequence of
events recording and fault record data is
required; (2) to notify other owners of
bulk electric system elements connected
to those particular bulk electric system
buses where sequence of events
recording and fault record data will be
necessary; and (3) to re-evaluate all bulk
9 Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 is not attached
to this final rule. The Reliability Standard is
available on the Commission’s eLibrary document
retrieval system in Docket No. RM15–4–00 and is
posted on NERC’s Web site, available at https://
www.nerc.com.
10 NERC Petition at 15.
11 Id. at 13. NERC defines a ‘‘Disturbance’’ as: ‘‘(1)
an unplanned event that produces an abnormal
system condition; (2) any perturbation to the
electric system; [or] (3) the unexpected change in
[area control error] that is caused by the sudden
failure of generation or interruption of load.’’ Id.
(quoting Glossary of Terms Used in NERC
Reliability Standards at 30).
12 Id. at 15.
13 Id. at 14–15.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
electric system buses every five years.
Requirement R2 requires transmission
owners and generation owners to collect
sequence of events data. Requirement
R3 and Requirement R4 require
transmission owners and generation
owners to collect fault recording data
and parameters of that data.
Requirement R5 through Requirement
R9 lay out thresholds where dynamic
disturbance recording data are required
and provide more specifics on its
collection.14 Requirement R10 requires
transmission owners and generation
owners to time synchronize the
recordings. According to NERC,
Requirement R10 provides the
synchronization requirements in
response to Recommendation No. 28
from the final report on the August 2003
blackout issued by the U.S.-Canada
Power System Outage Task Force
(Blackout Report).15 Requirement R11
requires transmission owners and
generation owners to provide sequence
of events recording, fault recording and
dynamic disturbance recording data
upon request and establishes specific
guidelines to ensure that data can be
used in the analysis of events.
Requirement R12 requires transmission
owners and generation owners to restore
the recording capability of the
equipment used to record disturbances,
if this capability is interrupted.
9. NERC proposed an implementation
plan that includes an effective date for
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 that is
the first day of the first calendar quarter
that is six months after the date that the
14 NERC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2), Attachment 1, Step 8 states:
[Sequence of events recordings] and [fault
recording] data is required at additional [bulk
electric system] buses on the list determined in Step
6. The aggregate of the number of [bulk electric
system] buses determined in Step 7 and this Step
will be at least 20 percent of the [bulk electric
system] buses determined in Step 6.
The additional [bulk electric system] buses are
selected, at the [t]ransmission [o]wner’s discretion,
to provide maximum wide-area coverage for
[Sequence of events recordings] and [fault
recording] data. The following [bulk electric
system] bus locations are recommended:
Electrically distant buses or electrically distant
from other [disturbance monitoring equipment]
devices.
Voltage sensitive areas.
Cohesive load and generation zones.
[Bulk electric system] buses with a relatively high
number of incident [t]ransmission circuits.
[Bulk electric system] buses with reactive power
devices.
Major [f]acilities interconnecting outside the
[t]ransmission [o]wner’s area.
15 NERC Petition at 35–36 (quoting U.S.-Canada
Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on
the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States
and Canada: Causes and Recommendations at 162
(Apr. 2004), available at https://energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/
BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Sep 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Commission approves the Reliability
Standard. Concurrent with the effective
date, the implementation plan calls for
the retirement of currently-effective
Reliability Standard PRC–018–1 and
‘‘pending’’ Reliability Standard PRC–
002–1.16
D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
10. On April 16, 2015, the
Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing to
approve Reliability Standard PRC–002–
2.17 The NOPR also proposed to
approve the associated violation risk
factors and violation severity levels,
implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by NERC.
11. In response to the NOPR, NERC
filed initial comments in support of the
NOPR. Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville) and
American Public Power Association
(APPA) filed comments addressing
aspects of Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 and the NOPR.18 NERC filed
reply comments in response to
Bonneville and APPA’s comments.
Below, we address the issues raised in
Bonneville and APPA’s comments.
II. Discussion
12. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2),
the Commission approves Reliability
Standard PRC–001–2 as just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
We also approve the associated
violation risk factors, violation severity
levels, implementation plan, and
effective date proposed by NERC. In
addition, we approve the retirement of
Reliability Standard PRC–018–1 due to
its consolidation with Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2.19
13. Reliability Standard PRC–002–2
enhances reliability by imposing
mandatory requirements concerning the
monitoring and reporting of
disturbances. Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 provides greater continent-wide
consistency regarding collection
methods for data used in the analysis of
16 Id.
at Ex. B (Implementation Plan).
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements Reliability Standard, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 22,441 (Apr. 22,
2015), 151 FERC ¶ 61,042 (2015) (NOPR).
18 Mr. Eric S. Morris’s comments did not
specifically address issues concerning Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 or the NOPR.
19 As noted above, the Commission in Order No.
693 did not approve proposed Reliability Standard
PRC–002–1 but, rather, took no action on the
Reliability Standard pending the receipt of
additional information. Order No. 693, FERC Stats.
and Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1456. Accordingly, with the
approval of Reliability Standard PRC–002–2,
proposed Reliability Standard PRC–002–1 is
‘‘retired,’’ i.e., withdrawn, and no longer pending
before the Commission.
17 Disturbance
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57705
disturbances on the Bulk-Power System.
Specifically, Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 enhances reliability by
consistently requiring covered entities
to collect time-synchronized
information and to report disturbances
on the Bulk-Power System. Accordingly,
we determine that Reliability Standard
PRC–002–2 satisfies the relevant
directive in Order No. 693.20
14. We address below Bonneville’s
comments regarding the methodology
used in Reliability Standard PRC–002–
2 to identify bulk electric system buses
that require data recording and, in
Section V below, APPA’s comments
regarding the NOPR’s Regulatory
Flexibility Act certification.
Methodology for Identifying Applicable
Bulk Electric System Buses NOPR
15. The NOPR proposed to approve
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 because
the Reliability Standard enhances
reliability by imposing mandatory
requirements concerning the monitoring
and reporting of disturbances and
provides greater continent-wide
consistency regarding collection
methods for data used in the analysis of
disturbances on the Bulk-Power System.
The NOPR did not raise concerns
regarding the methodology used in
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 for
identifying bulk electric system buses
that require data recording.
Comments
16. Bonneville states that it supports
using digital fault recorders for
sequence of events recordings and fault
recordings, but Bonneville does not
support the methodology used to
identify bulk electric system buses that
require data recording.21 Bonneville
claims that NERC’s petition did not
provide a technical justification for the
1,500 Mega Volt Amps (MVA)
calculated three-phase short circuit
threshold in Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2.22 Bonneville states that previous
drafts of the Reliability Standard ‘‘used
more logical criteria that the industry
has utilized in the past, such as the
number of lines connected to a bus.’’ 23
17. Bonneville also contends that the
methodology used in Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 does not allow for
adequate consideration of the unique
characteristics of an individual utility’s
20 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,242
at P 1456 (‘‘the ERO should consider whether
greater consistency can be achieved’’ regarding
disturbance monitoring and reporting).
21 Bonneville Comments at 2–3.
22 Id. at 3.
23 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
57706
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
system.24 Bonneville acknowledges that
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2,
Requirement R1 (in Attachment 1, Step
8) allows for the selection of additional
bulk electric system buses ‘‘at the
Transmission Owner’s discretion, to
provide maximum wide-area coverage
for [sequence of events] and [fault
recording] data.’’ 25 However,
Bonneville contends that such
discretion ‘‘may not result in consistent
or repeatable results.’’ 26 Bonneville also
questions how this provision would be
audited.27 Bonneville recommends
replacing the methodology in Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 with an existing
methodology used in other Reliability
Standards to identify critical facilities
and the bulk electric system buses
associated with those facilities, such as
the high, medium, and low impact
designations used in Reliability
Standard CIP–005–5.1.28
18. In its reply comments, NERC
states that Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 provides a technically sound
basis for identifying which buses
require data collection.29 NERC
contends that MVA levels more
accurately measure the reliability
impact of a particular bus than counting
the number of transmission lines
connected to the bus.30 NERC explains
that that the standard drafting team
established the MVA threshold by
sending an information request to all
transmission owners and generator
owners requesting data on bus fault
magnitude for three-phase bolted faults
on buses operated at 100 kV and
higher.31 NERC states that the standard
drafting team performed a median value
analysis and concluded that the
appropriate threshold is 1,500 MVA.32
19. NERC explains that it included
Step 8 of the bus identification
methodology in Reliability Standard
Requirement and
respondent
category for
PRC–002–2
20. We are not persuaded by
Bonneville’s concerns regarding the
methodology used to identify bulk
electric system buses that require data
recording. As described in NERC’s reply
comments, NERC has provided adequate
technical justification, through the use
of survey data and statistical analysis,
for the 1,500 MVA threshold in
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2. We
also find that the methodology in
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2
adequately addresses the unique
characteristics of individual utility
systems by allowing for the selection of
additional buses in Step 8 and that the
decisions to add buses under Step 8 are
auditable.
III. Information Collection Statement
21. The collection of information
addressed 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 1995.36
OMB’s regulations require approval of
certain information collection
Annual
number of
responses per
respondent
(2)
324
41 0.2
24 Id.
Total
number of
responses
(1)*(2)=(3)
64.8
Annual burden hours & total annual cost
(3)*(4)=(5)
(Eng.) 24 hrs.
($1,568.16); (R.K.) 12
hrs. ($401.04).
2,333 hrs. (1,555 Eng., 778 R.K.);
$127,605 ($101,618 Eng., $25,987
R.K.).
U.S.C. 3507(d).
CFR 1320.11.
38 As discussed above, Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 defines the term ‘‘Responsible Entity’’ to
include planning coordinators in the Eastern
Interconnection, the reliability coordinator in the
Western Interconnection, and planning
coordinators or the reliability coordinator in the
ERCOT Interconnection.
39 In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated
as ‘‘Eng.’’ and record keeping is abbreviated as
‘‘R.K.’’
40 The estimates for cost per response are derived
using the following formula: Burden Hours per
37 5
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
at 4.
Reply Comments at 5–6.
30 Id. at 6–7.
31 Id. at 7–8.
32 Id. at 8.
33 Id. at 8–9.
34 Id. at 9.
35 Id.
29 NERC
17:35 Sep 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
requirements imposed by agency
rules.37 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.
22. Public Reporting Burden: The
number of respondents below is based
on an examination of the NERC
compliance registry for transmission
owners and generation owners and the
estimation of how many entities from
that registry will be affected. At the time
of Commission review of Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2, 324 transmission
owners and 915 generation owners in
the United States are registered in the
NERC compliance registry. The
Commission notes that many generation
sites share a common generation owner.
Due to the nature of this task, it is likely
generator owners will manage this
information aggregation task using a
centralized staff. Therefore, we estimate
that one-third of the generation owners
(305) will have to meet the requirements
contained in Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2. We estimate that all 324
registered transmission owners will
need to comply with requirement R1 in
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 once
every five years. We further estimate
that two-thirds (216) of the registered
transmission owners will need to
comply with the remaining
requirements contained in Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2. Finally, we find
the number of ‘‘Responsible Entities’’ in
the United States to equal 50, based on
the NERC compliance registry.38 The
following table illustrates the burden to
be applied to the information
collection.39
Average burden
hours & cost per
response 40
(4)
36 44
25 Id.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commission Determination
Number of
respondents
(1)
R1. Each Transmission
Owner.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PRC–002–2 to allow for the engineering
judgment of a transmission owner to
account for the unique characteristics of
its system and to ensure adequate data
capture for proper event analysis.33
NERC notes that Step 8 also provides
criteria to guide an entity’s decision and
that, given this objective criteria,
auditors will have a firm basis to assess
whether the transmission owner
satisfied its obligation under Step 8.34 In
response to Bonneville’s alternative
approach, NERC contends that the
selection methodology in Reliability
Standard CIP 005–5.1 contemplates
cybersecurity issues and does not
contemplate the optimum location of
disturbance monitoring.35
Sfmt 4700
Response * $/hour = Cost per Response. The
$65.34/hour figure for an engineer and the $33.42/
hour figure for a record clerk are based on the
average salary plus benefits data from Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
41 In the NOPR, we estimated that each
transmission owner would respond annually. In
this final rule, we have revised the table to reflect
that Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 requires
transmission owners to comply every fifth year. We
have revised the calculated values in column 5 of
this row and the total row accordingly.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Number of
respondents
(1)
Annual
number of
responses per
respondent
(2)
R2. Each Transmission
Owner and Generator
Owner.
R3 & R4. Each Transmission Owner and
Generator Owner.
R5. Each Responsible
Entity.
521
1
521
521
1
521
50
1
50
R6. Each Transmission
Owner.
216
1
216
R7. Each Generator
Owner.
305
1
305
R8. Each Transmission
Owner and Generator
Owner.
R9. Each Transmission
Owner and Generator
Owner.
R10. Each Transmission
Owner and Generator
Owner.
R11. Each Transmission
Owner and Generator
Owner.
R12. Each Transmission
Owner and Generator
Owner 42.
521
1
521
521
1
521
521
1
521
521
1
521
52
1
52
Total .......................
....................
........................
........................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Requirement and
respondent
category for
PRC–002–2
Title: FERC–725G2 43 Disturbance
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
Action: Revision to existing
collection.
OMB Control No: 1902–0281.
Respondents: Business or other for
profit, and not for profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: Annually.
Necessity of the Information:
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 sets
forth requirements for disturbance
monitoring and reporting requirements
that will ensure adequate data are
available to facilitate analysis of bulk
electric system disturbances.
Internal review: 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.
23. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
42 The Commission estimates that 10 percent (or
52) of the 521 registered entities will have to restore
recording capability or institute a corrective action
plan (CAP) each year.
43 FERC–725G2 is temporarily being used because
FERC–725G (OMB Control No. 1902–0252) is
currently pending review at OMB.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Sep 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Total
number of
responses
(1)*(2)=(3)
Average burden
hours & cost per
response 40
(4)
........................................
IV. Environmental Analysis
25. 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.44 The Commission has
44 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Annual burden hours & total annual cost
(3)*(4)=(5)
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 7,294 hrs. (5210 Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$410,069 ($340,422 Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 7,294 hrs. (5210 Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$410,069 ($340,422 Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
(Eng.) 24 hrs.
1,800 hrs. (1200 Eng., 600 R.K.);
($1,568.16); (R.K.) 12
$98,460 ($78,408 Eng., $20,052 R.K.).
hrs. ($401.04).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 3,024 hrs. (2160 Eng., 864 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$170,009 ($141,134 Eng., $28,875
R.K.).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 4,270 hrs. (3050 Eng., 1220 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$240,059 ($199,287 Eng., $40,772
R.K.).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 7,294 hrs. (5210 Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$410,069 ($340,422 Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 7,294 hrs. (5210 Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$410,069 ($340,422 Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 7,294 hrs. (5210 Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$410,069 ($340,422 Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
(Eng.) 8 hrs. ($522.72);
6,252 hrs. (4168 Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
$341,984 ($272,337 Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
(Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653.40); 728 hrs. (520 Eng., 208 R.K.); $40,928
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($133.68).
($33,977 Eng., $6,951 R.K.).
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].
24. Comments on the requirements of
this rule 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 OMB
Control No. 1902–0281, FERC–725G2
and Docket No. RM15–4–000 in your
submission.
PO 00000
57707
Sfmt 4700
54,877 hrs. (38,703 Eng., 16,174 R.K.);
$3,069,390
($2,528,871
Eng.,
$540,519 R.K.).
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,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.45 The
actions here fall within this categorical
exclusion in the Commission’s
regulations.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 46 generally requires a
description and analysis of proposed
rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) revised
its size standards (effective January 22,
2014) for electric utilities from a
standard based on megawatt hours to a
standard based on the number of
employees, including affiliates.
52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
45 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
46 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
57708
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
NOPR
27. The Commission proposed that,
under SBA’s new standards, some
transmission owners and generation
owners might fall under the following
category and associated size threshold:
electric bulk power transmission and
control at 500 employees; hydroelectric
power generation at 500 employees;
fossil fuel electric power generation at
750 employees; nuclear electric power
generation at 750 employees.
28. The Commission estimated that
the number of applicable small entities
will be minimal due to the gross MVA
thresholds embedded into Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2. The gross MVA
thresholds focus information collection
on bulk electric system facilities having
Interconnection-wide impacts worthy of
collecting. We estimated that Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 will apply to
approximately 521 entities in the United
States.47 The Commission applied the
MVA thresholds above to estimate that
approximately 52 (or 10 percent) are
small entities. The Commission
estimated for these small entities,
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2,
Requirement R1 may need to be
evaluated and documented every five
years with costs of $9,847 for each
evaluation.48 From this set of small
entities, the Commission estimated that
five percent, or only two or three small
entities, may be affected by the other
requirements, i.e., Requirements R2
through R12, of Reliability Standard
PRC–002–2. The Commission proposed
that based on a prior industry-sponsored
survey, annual compliance costs will
average $100,000–$160,000 for entities
subject to these requirements.49
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Comments
29. APPA contends that the NOPR
understates the impact that Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 will have on small
entities by underestimating the number
or small entities affected and by not
addressing the ‘‘discriminatory
distribution of implementation costs’’
on small entities.50 APPA bases its
assertion on information provided by
one APPA member and not on a formal
survey of its members or independent
47 This number consists of the 216 transmission
owners and the 305 generation owners; however, it
does not include the 50 ‘‘Responsible Entities.’’ See
supra n.38.
48 The costs associated with evaluation will occur
every fifth year. By dividing the estimated costs of
evaluation by five, we estimate the annual cost to
be $1,969.40.
49 See NERC Petition Ex. G (Record of
Development) at 257 of pdf file, providing link to:
NERC Cost Effective Analysis Process (CEAP) Pilot
for NERC Project 2007–11—Disturbance
Monitoring—PRC–002–2 at 8 (Apr. 9, 2014).
50 APPA Comments at 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Sep 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
analysis.51 APPA states that its
unnamed member, a municipal joint
action agency, has determined that ten
of its members qualify as small entities
and that eight of these entities would be
subject to the requirements of Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2. APPA further
claims that ‘‘if the Commission were to
extrapolate from the information
outlined above to the estimated 52 small
[transmission operators] across the
country, it would clearly show that a
substantial number of small entities are
affected by proposed reliability standard
PRC–002–2.’’ 52
30. APPA also contends that
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 will
place an undue burden on small entities
because they do not currently have
sequence of events recording or fault
recording data recorders installed on
their bulk electric system buses.53 APPA
contrasts this with larger entities that
may have already installed those data
recorders.54 APPA also maintains that
small entities’ buses likely would not be
selected for monitoring if they were
included in a larger data set analyzed on
a wide-area basis.55 APPA further states
that the methodology in Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 unduly
discriminates against small entities
because entities with fewer than 10
qualifying buses will have to monitor a
greater percentage of their buses than
larger entities, which are responsible to
monitor only 10 percent of their buses.56
APPA requests that if the Commission
does not require changes to Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2, the Commission
should direct NERC to provide an
alternative compliance methodology for
small entities that would allow them to
find an equally effective method to
gather data from upstream buses to
reduce the burden on small entities.57
31. In its reply comments, NERC
contends that Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2 does not place an undue burden
on small entities.58 NERC states that
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 does
not explicitly require the installation of
fault recording data recorders on all
identified buses.59 NERC explains that
transmission owners need not install
devices to meet the requirements of
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 as long
as the transmission owner can obtain
the required data from other sources
51 Id.
52 Id.
53 Id.
at 3–4.
at 4.
55 Id. at 4–6.
56 Id. at 6–7.
57 Id. at 7.
58 NERC Reply Comments at 9–11.
59 Id. at 9.
54 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
such as other buses.60 NERC contends
that APPA’s comment that the
Reliability Standard should identify
either regional or sub-regional bus
locations as appropriate for disturbance
monitoring is flawed because
transmission owners are in the best
position to determine the location of the
buses due to their knowledge of their
systems.61
Commission Determination
32. The RFA requires an analysis
when a rule will have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The comments
submitted by APPA do not justify
altering the RFA certification proposed
in the NOPR.
33. We are not persuaded by APPA’s
claims regarding the number of small
entities likely to be affected by
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2. APPA
relied on an unverified report from a
single unnamed entity to claim that
eight small entities (rather than the two
or three estimated in the NOPR) would
be affected by Reliability Standard PRC–
002–2. Even if we were to assume that
APPA is correct regarding the eight
small entities, we find that eight small
entities out of 52 estimated small
entities is not a substantial number of
small entities. Further, aside from the
number of small entities affected, APPA
does not address the NOPR’s estimate
that Reliability Standard PRC–002–2
will not impose a significant economic
impact on applicable small entities.
34. With respect to APPA’s claim that
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2
imposes ‘‘discriminatory distribution of
implementation costs on small
entities,’’ 62 we agree with NERC that
APPA’s comments are premised on the
incorrect assertion that Reliability
Standard PRC–002–2 requires the
installation of recording devices. As
noted in NERC’s reply comments,
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 gives
applicable entities ‘‘the flexibility to
either install devices on their systems
or, to reduce their financial burden,
obtain the necessary data through other
means (e.g., by working with their
interconnected neighbors).’’ 63
35. Accordingly, we certify that
Reliability Standard PRC–002–2 will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
VI. Document Availability
36. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
60 Id.
at 9–10.
at 11.
62 Id. at 3.
63 Id. at 10.
61 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 186 / Friday, September 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
37. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
38. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from
FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652
(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
39. The final rule is effective
November 24, 2015. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of
the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is
being submitted to the Senate, House,
and Government Accountability Office.
By the Commission.
Issued: September 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–24278 Filed 9–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 53
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
[TD 9740]
RIN 1545–BL23
Reliance Standards for Making Good
Faith Determinations
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Sep 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information in these
final regulations is the good faith
determination set forth in §§ 53.4942(a)–
3(a)(6) and 53.4945–5(a)(5). The
collection of information contained in
these regulations is reflected in the
collection of information for Form 990–
PF, ‘‘Return of Private Foundation or
Section 4947(a)(1) Trust Treated as
Private Foundation,’’ that has been
reviewed and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), under control
number 1545–0052. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a valid
control number assigned by the Office of
Management and Budget. Books or
records relating to a collection of
information must be retained as long as
their contents might become material in
the administration of any internal
revenue law.
Background
This document contains amendments
to 26 CFR part 53 under chapter 42,
subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code). To avoid certain excise taxes
under chapter 42, a private foundation
(referred to in this preamble as a
‘‘foundation’’ or ‘‘grantor’’) 1 must make
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains final
regulations regarding the standards for
making a good faith determination that
a foreign organization is a charitable
organization that is not a private
foundation, so that grants made to that
foreign organization may be qualifying
distributions and not taxable
expenditures. The regulations also make
additional changes to conform the final
regulations to statutory amendments
made by the Deficit Reduction Act of
1984 and the Pension Protection Act of
2006. The regulations will affect private
foundations seeking to make good faith
determinations.
DATES: Effective date: These regulations
are effective on September 25, 2015.
Applicability date: For the dates of
applicability, see §§ 53.4942(a)–3(f) and
53.4945–5(f)(3).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ward L. Thomas, (202) 317–6173 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 The regulations under section 4942 refer to
‘‘distributing foundations’’ making distributions to
‘‘donee organizations,’’ whereas the regulations
under section 4945 refer to ‘‘grantor foundations’’
making or paying grants to ‘‘grantee organizations.’’
For simplicity, this preamble refers to grantors
making grants or distributions to grantee
organizations, in reference to both Code sections.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57709
a minimum level of ‘‘qualifying
distributions’’ (as defined in section
4942 of the Code) each year and must
avoid making taxable expenditures (as
defined in section 4945). A foundation
generally may treat grants made for
charitable purposes to certain foreign
organizations as qualifying distributions
under section 4942 if the foundation
makes a good faith determination that
the foreign organization is an
organization described in sections
501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) (a
‘‘public charity’’) that is not a
‘‘disqualified supporting organization’’
described in section 4942(g)(4)(A)(i) or
(ii), or is an organization described in
sections 501(c)(3) and 4942(j)(3) (an
‘‘operating foundation,’’ also known as
a ‘‘private operating foundation’’).
Similarly, foundations may treat grants
for charitable purposes to certain foreign
organizations as other than taxable
expenditures under section 4945
without having to exercise expenditure
responsibility if the foundation makes a
good faith determination that the foreign
organization is a public charity (other
than a disqualified supporting
organization) or is an operating
foundation described in section
4940(d)(2) (an ‘‘exempt operating
foundation’’). In this preamble, a foreign
grantee that is a public charity or
operating foundation that may receive a
qualifying distribution (or a grant for
which expenditure responsibility is not
required) is referred to as a ‘‘qualifying
public charity.’’ 2 This good faith
determination is commonly known as
an ‘‘equivalency determination.’’
Longstanding regulations under both
sections 4942 and 4945 provide that a
foundation will ordinarily be
considered to have made a ‘‘good faith
determination’’ if the determination is
based on an affidavit of the grantee or
on an opinion of counsel of either the
grantor or the grantee. The affidavit or
opinion must set forth sufficient facts
concerning the operations and support
of the grantee for the IRS to determine
that the grantee would be likely to
qualify as a public charity or an
operating foundation. See
§§ 53.4942(a)–3(a)(6) and 53.4945–
5(a)(5). In this preamble, we refer to this
rule, which gives assurance to
2 The class of qualifying public charities for
purposes of section 4945 is a slightly smaller subset
of those for purposes of section 4942. Thus, grants
to foreign organizations determined to be operating
foundations that are not exempt operating
foundations, and grants by operating foundations to
foreign organizations determined to be disqualified
supporting organizations, may be qualifying
distributions under section 4942 but the grantor
must nevertheless exercise expenditure
responsibility to avoid excise taxes under section
4945 on such grants.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57704-57709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24278]
[[Page 57704]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM15-4-000; Order No. 814]
Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Reliability
Standard
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves Reliability
Standard PRC-002-2 (Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements)
submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The
purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 is to have adequate data
available to facilitate analysis of bulk electric system disturbances.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective November 24,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juan R. Villar (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards and Security, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
Telephone: (202) 536-2930, Juan.Villar@ferc.gov.
Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8502, Alan.Rukin@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Order No. 814
Final Rule
(Issued September 17, 2015)
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability
Standard PRC-002-2 (Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements).\1\ The North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO), submitted Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 for approval. The
purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 is to have adequate data
available to facilitate analysis of bulk electric system disturbances.
In addition, the Commission approves the associated violation risk
factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and
effective date proposed by NERC. The Commission also approves the
retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-018-1 due to its consolidation
with Reliability Standard PRC-002-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval.\2\ Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or
by the Commission independently.\3\ In 2006, the Commission certified
NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id. 824o(c), (d).
\3\ Id. 824o(e).
\4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062
(ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ]
61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on
reh'g, 119 FERC ] 61,046 (2007), rev. denied sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v.
FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Order No. 693
3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including
Reliability Standard PRC-018-1.\5\ Reliability Standard PRC-018-1
requires the installation of disturbance monitoring equipment and the
reporting of disturbance data in accordance with comprehensive
requirements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
\6\ Id. PP 1550-1551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-002-1 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability
Standard because it required Regional Reliability Organizations to
establish requirements for installation of disturbance monitoring
equipment and report disturbance data to facilitate analyses of events
and verify system models.\7\ The Commission stated that it would not
approve or remand proposed Reliability Standard PRC-002-1 until NERC
submitted additional necessary information to the Commission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. P 1451.
\8\ Id. P 1456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. NERC Petition and Reliability Standard PRC-002-2
5. On December 15, 2014, NERC submitted a petition seeking
Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-002-2.\9\ NERC
contended that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 is just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. NERC
explained that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 consolidates the
requirements of unapproved Reliability Standard PRC-002-1 and
currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-018-1.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 is not attached to this final
rule. The Reliability Standard is available on the Commission's
eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM15-4-00 and is
posted on NERC's Web site, available at https://www.nerc.com.
\10\ NERC Petition at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NERC stated that it is important to monitor and analyze
disturbances to plan and operate the Bulk-Power System to avoid
instability, separation and cascading failures.\11\ NERC maintained
that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 improves reliability by providing
personnel with necessary data to enable more effective post event
analysis, which can also be used to verify system models.\12\ Moreover,
NERC explained that the Reliability Standard ``focuses on ensuring that
the requisite data is captured and the Requirements constitute a
results[hyphen]based approach to capturing data.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 13. NERC defines a ``Disturbance'' as: ``(1) an
unplanned event that produces an abnormal system condition; (2) any
perturbation to the electric system; [or] (3) the unexpected change
in [area control error] that is caused by the sudden failure of
generation or interruption of load.'' Id. (quoting Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards at 30).
\12\ Id. at 15.
\13\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. NERC stated that, in the United States, Reliability Standard
PRC-002-2 will apply to planning coordinators in the Eastern
Interconnection, planning coordinators or the reliability coordinator
in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Interconnection,
and the reliability coordinator in the Western Interconnection, which
are collectively referred to as ``Responsible Entities.'' Reliability
Standard PRC-002-2 will also apply to transmission owners and
generation owners.
8. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 includes 12
requirements. Requirement R1 requires transmission owners: (1) To
identify bulk electric system buses, e.g., substations, for which
sequence of events recording and fault record data is required; (2) to
notify other owners of bulk electric system elements connected to those
particular bulk electric system buses where sequence of events
recording and fault record data will be necessary; and (3) to re-
evaluate all bulk
[[Page 57705]]
electric system buses every five years. Requirement R2 requires
transmission owners and generation owners to collect sequence of events
data. Requirement R3 and Requirement R4 require transmission owners and
generation owners to collect fault recording data and parameters of
that data. Requirement R5 through Requirement R9 lay out thresholds
where dynamic disturbance recording data are required and provide more
specifics on its collection.\14\ Requirement R10 requires transmission
owners and generation owners to time synchronize the recordings.
According to NERC, Requirement R10 provides the synchronization
requirements in response to Recommendation No. 28 from the final report
on the August 2003 blackout issued by the U.S.-Canada Power System
Outage Task Force (Blackout Report).\15\ Requirement R11 requires
transmission owners and generation owners to provide sequence of events
recording, fault recording and dynamic disturbance recording data upon
request and establishes specific guidelines to ensure that data can be
used in the analysis of events. Requirement R12 requires transmission
owners and generation owners to restore the recording capability of the
equipment used to record disturbances, if this capability is
interrupted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NERC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
002-2), Attachment 1, Step 8 states:
[Sequence of events recordings] and [fault recording] data is
required at additional [bulk electric system] buses on the list
determined in Step 6. The aggregate of the number of [bulk electric
system] buses determined in Step 7 and this Step will be at least 20
percent of the [bulk electric system] buses determined in Step 6.
The additional [bulk electric system] buses are selected, at the
[t]ransmission [o]wner's discretion, to provide maximum wide-area
coverage for [Sequence of events recordings] and [fault recording]
data. The following [bulk electric system] bus locations are
recommended:
Electrically distant buses or electrically distant from other
[disturbance monitoring equipment] devices.
Voltage sensitive areas.
Cohesive load and generation zones.
[Bulk electric system] buses with a relatively high number of
incident [t]ransmission circuits.
[Bulk electric system] buses with reactive power devices.
Major [f]acilities interconnecting outside the [t]ransmission
[o]wner's area.
\15\ NERC Petition at 35-36 (quoting U.S.-Canada Power System
Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in
the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations at 162
(Apr. 2004), available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NERC proposed an implementation plan that includes an effective
date for Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 that is the first day of the
first calendar quarter that is six months after the date that the
Commission approves the Reliability Standard. Concurrent with the
effective date, the implementation plan calls for the retirement of
currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-018-1 and ``pending''
Reliability Standard PRC-002-1.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at Ex. B (Implementation Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
10. On April 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-002-2.\17\ The
NOPR also proposed to approve the associated violation risk factors and
violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by NERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 22,441
(Apr. 22, 2015), 151 FERC ] 61,042 (2015) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. In response to the NOPR, NERC filed initial comments in support
of the NOPR. Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and American
Public Power Association (APPA) filed comments addressing aspects of
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 and the NOPR.\18\ NERC filed reply
comments in response to Bonneville and APPA's comments. Below, we
address the issues raised in Bonneville and APPA's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Mr. Eric S. Morris's comments did not specifically address
issues concerning Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 or the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
12. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), the Commission approves
Reliability Standard PRC-001-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We also
approve the associated violation risk factors, violation severity
levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. In
addition, we approve the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-018-1
due to its consolidation with Reliability Standard PRC-002-2.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As noted above, the Commission in Order No. 693 did not
approve proposed Reliability Standard PRC-002-1 but, rather, took no
action on the Reliability Standard pending the receipt of additional
information. Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,242 at P
1456. Accordingly, with the approval of Reliability Standard PRC-
002-2, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-002-1 is ``retired,'' i.e.,
withdrawn, and no longer pending before the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 enhances reliability by imposing
mandatory requirements concerning the monitoring and reporting of
disturbances. Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 provides greater
continent-wide consistency regarding collection methods for data used
in the analysis of disturbances on the Bulk-Power System. Specifically,
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 enhances reliability by consistently
requiring covered entities to collect time-synchronized information and
to report disturbances on the Bulk-Power System. Accordingly, we
determine that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 satisfies the relevant
directive in Order No. 693.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1456
(``the ERO should consider whether greater consistency can be
achieved'' regarding disturbance monitoring and reporting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We address below Bonneville's comments regarding the
methodology used in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 to identify bulk
electric system buses that require data recording and, in Section V
below, APPA's comments regarding the NOPR's Regulatory Flexibility Act
certification.
Methodology for Identifying Applicable Bulk Electric System Buses NOPR
15. The NOPR proposed to approve Reliability Standard PRC-002-2
because the Reliability Standard enhances reliability by imposing
mandatory requirements concerning the monitoring and reporting of
disturbances and provides greater continent-wide consistency regarding
collection methods for data used in the analysis of disturbances on the
Bulk-Power System. The NOPR did not raise concerns regarding the
methodology used in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 for identifying bulk
electric system buses that require data recording.
Comments
16. Bonneville states that it supports using digital fault
recorders for sequence of events recordings and fault recordings, but
Bonneville does not support the methodology used to identify bulk
electric system buses that require data recording.\21\ Bonneville
claims that NERC's petition did not provide a technical justification
for the 1,500 Mega Volt Amps (MVA) calculated three-phase short circuit
threshold in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2.\22\ Bonneville states that
previous drafts of the Reliability Standard ``used more logical
criteria that the industry has utilized in the past, such as the number
of lines connected to a bus.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Bonneville Comments at 2-3.
\22\ Id. at 3.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Bonneville also contends that the methodology used in
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 does not allow for adequate
consideration of the unique characteristics of an individual utility's
[[Page 57706]]
system.\24\ Bonneville acknowledges that Reliability Standard PRC-002-
2, Requirement R1 (in Attachment 1, Step 8) allows for the selection of
additional bulk electric system buses ``at the Transmission Owner's
discretion, to provide maximum wide-area coverage for [sequence of
events] and [fault recording] data.'' \25\ However, Bonneville contends
that such discretion ``may not result in consistent or repeatable
results.'' \26\ Bonneville also questions how this provision would be
audited.\27\ Bonneville recommends replacing the methodology in
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 with an existing methodology used in
other Reliability Standards to identify critical facilities and the
bulk electric system buses associated with those facilities, such as
the high, medium, and low impact designations used in Reliability
Standard CIP-005-5.1.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. In its reply comments, NERC states that Reliability Standard
PRC-002-2 provides a technically sound basis for identifying which
buses require data collection.\29\ NERC contends that MVA levels more
accurately measure the reliability impact of a particular bus than
counting the number of transmission lines connected to the bus.\30\
NERC explains that that the standard drafting team established the MVA
threshold by sending an information request to all transmission owners
and generator owners requesting data on bus fault magnitude for three-
phase bolted faults on buses operated at 100 kV and higher.\31\ NERC
states that the standard drafting team performed a median value
analysis and concluded that the appropriate threshold is 1,500 MVA.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ NERC Reply Comments at 5-6.
\30\ Id. at 6-7.
\31\ Id. at 7-8.
\32\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. NERC explains that it included Step 8 of the bus identification
methodology in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 to allow for the
engineering judgment of a transmission owner to account for the unique
characteristics of its system and to ensure adequate data capture for
proper event analysis.\33\ NERC notes that Step 8 also provides
criteria to guide an entity's decision and that, given this objective
criteria, auditors will have a firm basis to assess whether the
transmission owner satisfied its obligation under Step 8.\34\ In
response to Bonneville's alternative approach, NERC contends that the
selection methodology in Reliability Standard CIP 005-5.1 contemplates
cybersecurity issues and does not contemplate the optimum location of
disturbance monitoring.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. at 8-9.
\34\ Id. at 9.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
20. We are not persuaded by Bonneville's concerns regarding the
methodology used to identify bulk electric system buses that require
data recording. As described in NERC's reply comments, NERC has
provided adequate technical justification, through the use of survey
data and statistical analysis, for the 1,500 MVA threshold in
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. We also find that the methodology in
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 adequately addresses the unique
characteristics of individual utility systems by allowing for the
selection of additional buses in Step 8 and that the decisions to add
buses under Step 8 are auditable.
III. Information Collection Statement
21. The collection of information addressed 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.\36\ OMB's
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\37\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
\37\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Public Reporting Burden: The number of respondents below is
based on an examination of the NERC compliance registry for
transmission owners and generation owners and the estimation of how
many entities from that registry will be affected. At the time of
Commission review of Reliability Standard PRC-002-2, 324 transmission
owners and 915 generation owners in the United States are registered in
the NERC compliance registry. The Commission notes that many generation
sites share a common generation owner. Due to the nature of this task,
it is likely generator owners will manage this information aggregation
task using a centralized staff. Therefore, we estimate that one-third
of the generation owners (305) will have to meet the requirements
contained in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. We estimate that all 324
registered transmission owners will need to comply with requirement R1
in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 once every five years. We further
estimate that two-thirds (216) of the registered transmission owners
will need to comply with the remaining requirements contained in
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. Finally, we find the number of
``Responsible Entities'' in the United States to equal 50, based on the
NERC compliance registry.\38\ The following table illustrates the
burden to be applied to the information collection.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As discussed above, Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 defines
the term ``Responsible Entity'' to include planning coordinators in
the Eastern Interconnection, the reliability coordinator in the
Western Interconnection, and planning coordinators or the
reliability coordinator in the ERCOT Interconnection.
\39\ In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated as ``Eng.''
and record keeping is abbreviated as ``R.K.''
\40\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Burden Hours per Response * $/hour = Cost per
Response. The $65.34/hour figure for an engineer and the $33.42/hour
figure for a record clerk are based on the average salary plus
benefits data from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
\41\ In the NOPR, we estimated that each transmission owner
would respond annually. In this final rule, we have revised the
table to reflect that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 requires
transmission owners to comply every fifth year. We have revised the
calculated values in column 5 of this row and the total row
accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number Average burden
Requirement and respondent Number of of responses Total number hours & cost Annual burden hours
category for PRC-002-2 respondents per of responses per response & total annual cost
(1) respondent (2) (1)*(2)=(3) \40\ (4) (3)*(4)=(5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R1. Each Transmission Owner. 324 \41\ 0.2 64.8 (Eng.) 24 hrs. 2,333 hrs. (1,555
($1,568.16); Eng., 778 R.K.);
(R.K.) 12 hrs. $127,605 ($101,618
($401.04). Eng., $25,987
R.K.).
[[Page 57707]]
R2. Each Transmission Owner 521 1 521 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 7,294 hrs. (5210
and Generator Owner. ($653.40); Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $410,069 ($340,422
($133.68). Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
R3 & R4. Each Transmission 521 1 521 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 7,294 hrs. (5210
Owner and Generator Owner. ($653.40); Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $410,069 ($340,422
($133.68). Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
R5. Each Responsible Entity. 50 1 50 (Eng.) 24 hrs. 1,800 hrs. (1200
($1,568.16); Eng., 600 R.K.);
(R.K.) 12 hrs. $98,460 ($78,408
($401.04). Eng., $20,052
R.K.).
R6. Each Transmission Owner. 216 1 216 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 3,024 hrs. (2160
($653.40); Eng., 864 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $170,009 ($141,134
($133.68). Eng., $28,875
R.K.).
R7. Each Generator Owner.... 305 1 305 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 4,270 hrs. (3050
($653.40); Eng., 1220 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $240,059 ($199,287
($133.68). Eng., $40,772
R.K.).
R8. Each Transmission Owner 521 1 521 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 7,294 hrs. (5210
and Generator Owner. ($653.40); Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $410,069 ($340,422
($133.68). Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
R9. Each Transmission Owner 521 1 521 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 7,294 hrs. (5210
and Generator Owner. ($653.40); Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $410,069 ($340,422
($133.68). Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
R10. Each Transmission Owner 521 1 521 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 7,294 hrs. (5210
and Generator Owner. ($653.40); Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $410,069 ($340,422
($133.68). Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
R11. Each Transmission Owner 521 1 521 (Eng.) 8 hrs. 6,252 hrs. (4168
and Generator Owner. ($522.72); Eng., 2084 R.K.);
(R.K.) 4 hrs. $341,984 ($272,337
($133.68). Eng., $69,647
R.K.).
R12. Each Transmission Owner 52 1 52 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 728 hrs. (520 Eng.,
and Generator Owner \42\. ($653.40); 208 R.K.); $40,928
(R.K.) 4 hrs. ($33,977 Eng.,
($133.68). $6,951 R.K.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... ........... .............. .............. ............... 54,877 hrs. (38,703
Eng., 16,174 R.K.);
$3,069,390
($2,528,871 Eng.,
$540,519 R.K.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: FERC-725G2 \43\ Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The Commission estimates that 10 percent (or 52) of the 521
registered entities will have to restore recording capability or
institute a corrective action plan (CAP) each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action: Revision to existing collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ FERC-725G2 is temporarily being used because FERC-725G (OMB
Control No. 1902-0252) is currently pending review at OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control No: 1902-0281.
Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: Annually.
Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 sets
forth requirements for disturbance monitoring and reporting
requirements that will ensure adequate data are available to facilitate
analysis of bulk electric system disturbances.
Internal review: 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.
23. 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].
24. Comments on the requirements of this rule 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 OMB Control No. 1902-
0281, FERC-725G2 and Docket No. RM15-4-000 in your submission.
IV. Environmental Analysis
25. 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.\44\ 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, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\45\ The actions here fall
within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\45\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \46\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size standards
(effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a standard
based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of employees,
including affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57708]]
NOPR
27. The Commission proposed that, under SBA's new standards, some
transmission owners and generation owners might fall under the
following category and associated size threshold: electric bulk power
transmission and control at 500 employees; hydroelectric power
generation at 500 employees; fossil fuel electric power generation at
750 employees; nuclear electric power generation at 750 employees.
28. The Commission estimated that the number of applicable small
entities will be minimal due to the gross MVA thresholds embedded into
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. The gross MVA thresholds focus
information collection on bulk electric system facilities having
Interconnection-wide impacts worthy of collecting. We estimated that
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 will apply to approximately 521 entities
in the United States.\47\ The Commission applied the MVA thresholds
above to estimate that approximately 52 (or 10 percent) are small
entities. The Commission estimated for these small entities,
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2, Requirement R1 may need to be evaluated
and documented every five years with costs of $9,847 for each
evaluation.\48\ From this set of small entities, the Commission
estimated that five percent, or only two or three small entities, may
be affected by the other requirements, i.e., Requirements R2 through
R12, of Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. The Commission proposed that
based on a prior industry-sponsored survey, annual compliance costs
will average $100,000-$160,000 for entities subject to these
requirements.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ This number consists of the 216 transmission owners and the
305 generation owners; however, it does not include the 50
``Responsible Entities.'' See supra n.38.
\48\ The costs associated with evaluation will occur every fifth
year. By dividing the estimated costs of evaluation by five, we
estimate the annual cost to be $1,969.40.
\49\ See NERC Petition Ex. G (Record of Development) at 257 of
pdf file, providing link to: NERC Cost Effective Analysis Process
(CEAP) Pilot for NERC Project 2007-11--Disturbance Monitoring--PRC-
002-2 at 8 (Apr. 9, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
29. APPA contends that the NOPR understates the impact that
Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 will have on small entities by
underestimating the number or small entities affected and by not
addressing the ``discriminatory distribution of implementation costs''
on small entities.\50\ APPA bases its assertion on information provided
by one APPA member and not on a formal survey of its members or
independent analysis.\51\ APPA states that its unnamed member, a
municipal joint action agency, has determined that ten of its members
qualify as small entities and that eight of these entities would be
subject to the requirements of Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. APPA
further claims that ``if the Commission were to extrapolate from the
information outlined above to the estimated 52 small [transmission
operators] across the country, it would clearly show that a substantial
number of small entities are affected by proposed reliability standard
PRC-002-2.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ APPA Comments at 3.
\51\ Id.
\52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. APPA also contends that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 will
place an undue burden on small entities because they do not currently
have sequence of events recording or fault recording data recorders
installed on their bulk electric system buses.\53\ APPA contrasts this
with larger entities that may have already installed those data
recorders.\54\ APPA also maintains that small entities' buses likely
would not be selected for monitoring if they were included in a larger
data set analyzed on a wide-area basis.\55\ APPA further states that
the methodology in Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 unduly discriminates
against small entities because entities with fewer than 10 qualifying
buses will have to monitor a greater percentage of their buses than
larger entities, which are responsible to monitor only 10 percent of
their buses.\56\ APPA requests that if the Commission does not require
changes to Reliability Standard PRC-002-2, the Commission should direct
NERC to provide an alternative compliance methodology for small
entities that would allow them to find an equally effective method to
gather data from upstream buses to reduce the burden on small
entities.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id. at 3-4.
\54\ Id. at 4.
\55\ Id. at 4-6.
\56\ Id. at 6-7.
\57\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. In its reply comments, NERC contends that Reliability Standard
PRC-002-2 does not place an undue burden on small entities.\58\ NERC
states that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 does not explicitly require
the installation of fault recording data recorders on all identified
buses.\59\ NERC explains that transmission owners need not install
devices to meet the requirements of Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 as
long as the transmission owner can obtain the required data from other
sources such as other buses.\60\ NERC contends that APPA's comment that
the Reliability Standard should identify either regional or sub-
regional bus locations as appropriate for disturbance monitoring is
flawed because transmission owners are in the best position to
determine the location of the buses due to their knowledge of their
systems.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ NERC Reply Comments at 9-11.
\59\ Id. at 9.
\60\ Id. at 9-10.
\61\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
32. The RFA requires an analysis when a rule will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The comments
submitted by APPA do not justify altering the RFA certification
proposed in the NOPR.
33. We are not persuaded by APPA's claims regarding the number of
small entities likely to be affected by Reliability Standard PRC-002-2.
APPA relied on an unverified report from a single unnamed entity to
claim that eight small entities (rather than the two or three estimated
in the NOPR) would be affected by Reliability Standard PRC-002-2. Even
if we were to assume that APPA is correct regarding the eight small
entities, we find that eight small entities out of 52 estimated small
entities is not a substantial number of small entities. Further, aside
from the number of small entities affected, APPA does not address the
NOPR's estimate that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 will not impose a
significant economic impact on applicable small entities.
34. With respect to APPA's claim that Reliability Standard PRC-002-
2 imposes ``discriminatory distribution of implementation costs on
small entities,'' \62\ we agree with NERC that APPA's comments are
premised on the incorrect assertion that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2
requires the installation of recording devices. As noted in NERC's
reply comments, Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 gives applicable
entities ``the flexibility to either install devices on their systems
or, to reduce their financial burden, obtain the necessary data through
other means (e.g., by working with their interconnected neighbors).''
\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id. at 3.
\63\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Accordingly, we certify that Reliability Standard PRC-002-2
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
VI. Document Availability
36. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal
[[Page 57709]]
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.
37. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
38. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification
39. The final rule is effective November 24, 2015. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being
submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.
By the Commission.
Issued: September 17, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24278 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
