82 FR 44918 - Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 186 (September 27, 2017)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 186 (September 27, 2017)
| Page Range | 44918-44925 | |
| FR Document | 2017-20669 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44918-44925] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-20669] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM16-20-000; Order No. 837] Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes) submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system. DATES: This rule will become effective November 27, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards and Security, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8718, [email protected]. Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8502, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 44919]] Order No. 837 Final Rule (Issued September 20, 2017) 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes).\1\ The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 for approval. The purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system. 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 currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 as well as NERC's request to withdraw proposed Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1, which are now pending before the Commission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 section 215 of the FPA.\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), aff'd 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 Standards PRC-015-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Data and Documentation) and PRC-016-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation).\5\ Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 requires transmission owners, generator owners, and distribution providers to maintain a listing; retain evidence of review; and provide documentation of existing, new or functionally modified special protection systems.\6\ Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 requires transmission owners, generator owners, and distribution providers to provide the regional reliability organization with documentation, analyses and corrective action plans for misoperation of special protection systems.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007). \6\ Id. PP 1529-1533. \7\ Id. PP 1534-1540. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that then-proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standard because, while it would require regional reliability organizations to ensure that all special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems, NERC had not submitted any regional review procedures with the proposed Reliability Standard.\8\ Similarly, the Commission determined that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-013-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standard because, although it was intended to ensure that all special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems by requiring the regional reliability organization to maintain a database of information on special protection systems, NERC had not filed any regional procedures for maintaining the databases.\9\ Further, the Commission determined that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-014-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standard because, while it was proposed to ensure that special protection systems are properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems by requiring the regional reliability organization to assess and document the operation, coordination, and compliance with NERC Reliability Standards and effectiveness of special protection systems at least once every five years, NERC had not submitted any regional procedures for this assessment and documentation.\10\ The Commission stated that it would not approve or remand proposed Reliability Standards PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0 or PRC-014-0 until NERC submitted the additional necessary information to the Commission.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Id. PP 1517-18, 1520. The Commission used the term ``fill- in-the-blank'' standards to refer to proposed Reliability Standards that required the regional reliability organizations to develop at a later date criteria for use by users, owners or operators within each region. Id. P 297. \9\ Id. PP 1521, 1522, 1524. \10\ Id. PP 1525, 1526, 1528. \11\ Id. PP 1520, 1524, 1528. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Remedial Action Schemes 5. On June 23, 2016, the Commission approved NERC's revision to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) that redefines special protection system to have the same definition as remedial action scheme, effective April 1, 2017.\12\ The NERC Glossary defines remedial action scheme to mean: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD16-5-000 (June 23, 2016) (delegated letter order); NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf. A scheme designed to detect predetermined System conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). [Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)] accomplish objectives such as:Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards; Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability; Maintain acceptable BES voltages; Maintain acceptable BES power flows; Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf; see also Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of ``Remedial Action Scheme'' and Related Reliability Standards, Order No. 818, 153 FERC ] 61,228, at PP 24, 31 (2015). The revised remedial action scheme definition also identifies fourteen items that do not individually constitute a remedial action scheme. D. NERC Petition and Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 6. On August 5, 2016, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\14\ NERC contended that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\15\ NERC explained that the intent of [[Page 44920]] Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to supersede ``pending'' Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and to retire and replace currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1.\16\ NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 represents substantial improvements over these Reliability Standards because it streamlines and consolidates existing requirements; corrects the applicability of previously unapproved Reliability Standards; and implements a continent-wide remedial action scheme review program.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is not attached to this Final Rule. The Reliability Standard is available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM16- 20-000 and is posted on NERC's Web site, http://www.nerc.com. \15\ NERC Petition at 2. \16\ NERC noted that it submitted ``for completeness'' revised versions of Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014- 1 in its petition to revise the definition of remedial action scheme, but NERC did not request Commission approval of the revised Reliability Standards in that proceeding. Id. at 1 n.5. \17\ Id. at 12-13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. NERC stated that, in the United States, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to reliability coordinators, planning coordinators, and remedial action scheme-entities. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 defines remedial action scheme-entities to include each transmission owner, generation owner, or distribution provider that owns all or part of a remedial action scheme. 8. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 includes nine requirements that combine all existing (both effective and ``pending'') Reliability Standards mentioned above into a single, consolidated, continent-wide Reliability Standard to address all aspects of remedial action schemes.\18\ NERC explained that all of the requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-012-1 except R2 are now covered in Requirements R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R8 of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\19\ NERC maintained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-1, Requirement R2 is ``administrative in nature and does not contribute to reliability.'' \20\ NERC also stated that it established Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R9 to replace the mandate in Reliability Standard PRC-013-1 that responsible entities maintain a remedial action scheme database with pertinent technical information for each remedial action scheme.\21\ NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R4 and R6 cover the review and the mandate to take corrective action required by Reliability Standard PRC- 014-1.\22\ NERC stated that it integrated the performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 into Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R1, R2, and R3.\23\ NERC also asserted that it integrated the performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 into Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R5, R6, and R7.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Id. at 3. \19\ Id. at 40. \20\ Id. at 41. \21\ Id. at 42. \22\ Id.at 43. \23\ Id. at 43-44. \24\ Id. at 44-45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. NERC explained how the nine Requirements in Reliability Standard PRC- 012-2 work together and with other Reliability Standards. According to NERC, Requirements R1, R2, and R3, together, establish a process for the reliability coordinator to review new or modified remedial action schemes.\25\ The reliability coordinator must complete the review before an entity places a new or functionally modified remedial action scheme into service. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Id. at 15-18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Requirement R4 requires the planning coordinator to perform a periodic evaluation of each remedial action scheme within its planning area, at least once every five years.\26\ The evaluation must determine, inter alia, whether each remedial action scheme: (1) Mitigates the system conditions or contingencies for which it was designed; and (2) avoids adverse interactions with other remedial action scheme and protection systems. Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 defines a certain subset of remedial action schemes as ``limited impact.'' Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 states: ``A RAS designated as limited impact cannot, by inadvertent operation or failure to operate, cause or contribute to BES Cascading, uncontrolled separation, angular instability, voltage instability, voltage collapse, or unacceptably damped oscillations.'' \27\ Further, Requirement R4, Parts 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5 provide certain exceptions to ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes. For example, Part 4.1.5 states that: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Id. at 18-22. \27\ Id. at 19 & n.44. Except for limited impact RAS, a single component failure in the RAS, when the RAS is intended to operate does not prevent the BES from meeting the same performance requirements (defined in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or its successor) as those required for the events and conditions for which the RAS is designed.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ Id. at 19. NERC explained that Requirement R4 ``does not supersede or modify [planning coordinator] responsibilities under Reliability Standard TPL- 001-4.'' \29\ NERC continued that even though Part 4.1.5 exempts ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes from certain aspects of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R4 does not exempt ``limited impact'' remedial actions schemes from meeting each of the performance requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ Id. at 28. \30\ Id. at 28-29. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. NERC stated that prior to development of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, two NERC Regions, the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) and the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC), used their own remedial action scheme classification regimes to identify remedial action schemes that would meet criteria similar to those for remedial action schemes described as ``limited impact'' in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\31\ NERC continued that the standard drafting team identified the Local Area Protection Scheme (LAPS) classification in WECC and the Type III classification in NPCC as consistent with the ``limited impact'' designation.\32\ According to NERC, remedial action schemes implemented prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that have gone through the regional review processes of WECC or NPCC and that are classified as either a LAPS by WECC or a Type III by NPCC would be considered a ``limited impact'' remedial action scheme for purposes of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ Id. at 25. \32\ Id.at 25-26. \33\ Id. at 26. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Requirements R5, R6, and R7 pertain to the analysis of each remedial action scheme operation or misoperation.\34\ A remedial action scheme-entity must perform an analysis of each remedial action scheme operation or misoperation and provide the results to the reviewing reliability coordinator. Further, the remedial action scheme-entity must develop and submit a corrective action plan to the reviewing reliability coordinator after learning of a deficiency with its remedial action scheme, implement the corrective action plan, and update it as necessary. Requirement R8 requires periodic testing of remedial action scheme performance: Every six years for normal remedial action schemes and every 12 years for ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes.\35\ Requirement R9 requires the reliability coordinator to annually update its remedial action scheme database.\36\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ Id. at 29-34. \35\ Id. at 34-36. \36\ Id. at 36-38. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 44921]] 13. NERC proposed an implementation plan that includes an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is thirty-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 Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 and withdrawal of ``pending'' Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1. E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 14. On January 19, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\37\ The NOPR also proposed to clarify that, consistent with NERC's representation in its petition, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\38\ In addition, the NOPR proposed to approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC.\39\ The NOPR further proposed to approve the withdrawal of ``pending'' Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1, as proposed by NERC.\40\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 82 FR 9702 (Jan. 19, 2017), 158 FERC ] 61,042 (2017) (NOPR). \38\ NOPR, 158 FERC ] 61,042 at P 16. \39\ Id. P 14. \40\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. In response to the NOPR, entities filed seven sets of comments. We address below the issues raised in the NOPR and comments. The Appendix to this Final Rule lists the entities that filed comments in response to the NOPR. II. Discussion 16. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we hereby approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\41\ Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 promotes efficiency and clarity by addressing all aspects of remedial action schemes in a single, continent-wide Reliability Standard. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 enhances reliability by assigning specific remedial action scheme responsibilities to appropriate functional entities. Further, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves reliability by establishing a centralized process to review new or modified remedial action schemes prior to implementation, by requiring periodic evaluations, tests, and operational analyses of each remedial action scheme, and by requiring an annual update of an area-wide remedial action scheme database. We determine that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 satisfies the relevant directives in Order No. 693 for the ERO to provide additional information regarding review procedures for remedial action schemes (then called special protection systems) and to establish continent-wide uniformity.\42\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). \42\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 297-298, 1517-1520. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. We also approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. In addition, we approve, upon the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, the withdrawal of pending Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 due to their consolidation with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2. A. Impact of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 on Compliance With Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 NOPR 18. The NOPR sought comments on its proposal to clarify that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system performance obligation under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. The NOPR also sought comments on the processes used to ensure LAPS or Type III remedial action schemes' compliance with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2. Comments 19. NERC, Joint ISOs, and the EEI support the Commission's proposal to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 with a clarification that it does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\43\ NERC states that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 merely adds design, implementation, and review requirements ensuring that remedial action schemes enhance reliability and do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks.\44\ NERC and Joint ISOs state that Reliability Standard PRC-012- 2 does not supersede or modify the system performance requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 because responsible entities must still assume that all remedial action schemes operate correctly, guaranteeing a non-consequential load loss by less than 75 MW.\45\ Joint ISOs believe that no clarification to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is necessary; but if the Commission determines that some clarification is necessary, the Commission may confirm that under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, responsible entities can assume that all remedial action schemes operate as designed.\46\ EEI states that while it is unlikely that the exceptions in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 would be interpreted by industry as exempting any of the performance requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, EEI is supportive of the proposed clarification since such clarification would remove any ambiguity.\47\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ NERC Comments at 4; Joint ISO Comments at 2; EEI Comments at 4. \44\ NERC Comments at 5. \45\ Id. at 5; Joint ISO Comments at 2. \46\ Joint ISO Comments at 2. \47\ EEI Comments at 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. NESCOE contends that, absent confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 allows responsible entities to assume that all remedial action schemes operate properly, a clarification that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 may be misinterpreted by entities, requiring actions that would increase material costs without benefit.\48\ NESCO states that reliability gains must be measured against the risk and cost associated with any standard.\49\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ NESCO Comments at 2. \49\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21. NERC states that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\50\ According to NERC, Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 does not distinguish between different types of remedial action schemes or exempt LAPS or Type III remedial action schemes from any of the performance requirements.\51\ NERC and Joint ISOs state that additional regional controls that maintain remedial action scheme compliance with the performance requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 are in place.\52\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \50\ NERC Comments at 5. \51\ Id. at 6. \52\ Id.; Joint ISO Comments at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 44922]] 22. EEI questions the relevancy of asking the industry to comment on WECC LAPS or NPCC Type III remedial action schemes reclassification as ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes.\53\ EEI contends that once the Commission approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, WECC and NPCC must be compliant regardless. EEI believes that insights into processes ensuring compliance with Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 are irrelevant.\54\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ EEI Comments at 5. \54\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission Determination 23. We adopt our NOPR proposal and clarify that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We agree with and, thus, adopt NERC's explanation: Nothing in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 or the designation of a RAS as ``limited impact'' exempts an entity from meeting its performance requirements under [Reliability Standard] TPL-001-4, including the requirement that Non-Consequential Load Loss may not exceed 75 MW for certain Category P1, P2, or P3 contingencies, as provided in Table 1 and footnote 12 of TPL-001-4. In performing the assessments required pursuant to Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, an entity must consider all RAS, whether designated as ``limited impact'' or not. While Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement R2, Part 2.7.1 recognizes that entities may use a RAS as a method for meeting the performance obligations of Table 1, TPL-001-4 does not distinguish between different types of RAS. As such, entities must satisfy the performance requirements of TPL-001-4 considering the actions of ``limited impact'' RAS and non- limited impact RAS alike.\55\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ NERC Comments at 5. In response to the requests by Joint ISOs and NESCOE for confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 allows responsible entities to assume that all remedial action schemes operate properly, the Commission declines to interpret Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 in this proceeding. However, this Final Rule approving Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 in no way modifies the requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or the compliance obligations associated with Reliability Standard TPL-001- 4. This clarification should help entities avoid confusion regarding compliance obligations when implementing PRC-012-2. 24. In addition, we accept NERC's assurance that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\56\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \56\ We note that WECC's and NPCC's remedial action scheme criteria and associated regional terms found in the ``Technical Justification'' section of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 were not submitted for approval by NERC and as such are not part of this proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Definition of ``Limited Impact'' Remedial Action Schemes NOPR 25. The NOPR sought comment on whether NERC should define the term ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary. Comments 26. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI contend that NERC should not define the term ``limited impact'' remedial action scheme in the NERC Glossary.\57\ NERC states that it typically develops terms in the NERC Glossary for one of two reasons: ``(1) To establish a single meaning for a term or concept used across several different Reliability Standards or multiple times within a single Reliability Standard, or (2) to provide for a more readable standard by creating a shorthand reference to avoid unnecessary repetition.'' \58\ NERC contends that neither reason exists for ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes.\59\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ NERC Comments at 8; Joint ISO Comments at 3; EEI at 5. \58\ NERC Comments at 8. \59\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27. NERC and EEI maintain that remedial action schemes vary widely in complexity and impact on the bulk electric system.\60\ NERC and EEI explain that NERC should not define ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes because not all remedial action schemes impact the bulk electric system similarly and the diversity of remedial action schemes makes it difficult to establish a common definition for North America.\61\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \60\ NERC Comments at 9; EEI Comments at 5. \61\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI assert that other comprehensive lists may establish a baseline definition for ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes.\62\ Joint ISOs note that the performance criteria described in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement 4.1.3, footnote 1 provide an adequate level of guidance.\63\ MISO contends that NERC need not define ``limited impact'' remedial action scheme in the NERC Glossary.\64\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \62\ NERC Comments at 9; Joint ISO Comments at 3; EEI Comments at 6. \63\ Joint ISO Comments at 3-4. \64\ MISO Comments at 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29. Bonneville and ITC contend that NERC should define the term ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.\65\Bonneville states that the footnote in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 only reiterates the substantive requirements of ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes under Requirement R4.3.1 and does not clarify how ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes differ from normal remedial action schemes.\66\ Bonneville proposes the following definition for ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\ Bonneville Comments at 2; ITC Comments at 1. \66\ Bonneville Comments at 2. A remedial action scheme whose operation or misoperation only affects the local area defined by the RAS-entity that owns all of part of the remedial action scheme and does not affect the BES of any adjacent Transmission Owners, Transmission Operators, Generation Owners, or Generation Operators.\67\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \67\ Id. ITC also states that the Commission should issue a directive to NERC to define ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.\68\ ITC states that doing so avoids confusion while ensuring consistency, facilitates the use of the term in other Reliability Standards, and enhances the overall usefulness of the NERC Glossary.\69\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \68\ ITC Comments at 1. \69\ Id. at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission Determination 30. We determine not to require NERC to define ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary. We agree with NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI that a definition of ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes is unnecessary at this time given the diversity among the different types, functions, and placements of remedial action schemes across North America. In addition, only Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 uses the term ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes, thus eliminating one of the principal reasons for normally including terms in the NERC Glossary (i.e., to establish a single meaning for a term or concept used across several different Reliability Standards). Should this situation change, the Commission may reconsider this determination. C. Other Issues Comments 31. MISO contends that the Commission should not approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as proposed.\70\ MISO contends that oversight of remedial action schemes would be difficult for reliability coordinators and planning coordinators when remedial action schemes span multiple footprints.\71\ MISO also contends that Reliability Standard PRC- [[Page 44923]] 012-2 creates a geographical variation in transmission system characteristics which result in uneven distribution of coordination burden and duplicative work on remedial action schemes.\72\ MISO contends that the planning assessment performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 are better placed in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 to avoid redundancies.\73\ Finally, MISO proposes a five-year evaluation of remedial action schemes, which includes a renewal requirement to benefit efficient operations.\74\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \70\ MISO Comments at 2. \71\ Id. \72\ Id. at 3. \73\ Id. at 4-5. \74\ Id. 6-7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32. Bonneville contends that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 gives reliability coordinators too much time to complete reviews of remedial action schemes.\75\ Bonneville states that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 provides reliability coordinators four calendar months to review a remedial action scheme.\76\ Bonneville states that in the Western Interconnection, these reviews are currently completed in two weeks. Bonneville continues that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 allows an additional fourteen weeks for review, which would prevent Bonneville from completing remedial action scheme projects in a timely manner.\77\ Bonneville proposes that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 should require reliability coordinators to complete their reviews within four weeks.\78\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \75\ Bonneville Comments at 2. \76\ Id. \77\ Id. at 3. \78\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission Determination 33. MISO's opposition to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is largely based on perceived ``inefficiencies'' created by the Reliability Standard because it allegedly lacks regional coordination between reliability coordinators and planning coordinators and because of ``redundancies'' between PRC-012-2 and Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We are not persuaded that MISO's concerns justify remanding Reliability Standard PRC-012-2. As discussed above, we determine that the Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 satisfies section 215(d)(2) of the FPA in that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. MISO accepts that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 ``shifts responsibility from the eight Regional Reliability Organizations (RROs) to Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators'' and MISO ``agrees that the Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators are best positioned to perform review and evaluation tasks associated with RAS.'' \79\ We also note that other commenters, including Joint ISOs, do not share MISO's concerns and support approval of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as drafted.\80\ To the extent that MISO continues to believe that improvements should be made to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, MISO may pursue any modifications through the NERC standards development process.\81\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \79\ MISO Comments at 2. \80\ Joint ISOs Comments at 1. \81\ With respect to MISO's proposal that each remedial action scheme be renewed every five years, NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R4 provides for periodic remedial action scheme evaluations (i.e., at least every five years) by planning coordinators that will result in one of three determinations: (1) Affirmation that the existing remedial action scheme is effective; (2) identification of changes needed to the existing remedial action scheme; or (3) justification for remedial action scheme retirement. NERC Petition at 21. Provided that the remedial action scheme is determined to be effective, is made effective, or retired, we see no reliability reason to direct inclusion of an additional renewal sub-requirement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34. We are not persuaded by Bonneville's comments regarding the period that reliability coordinators have to review remedial action schemes. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 establishes a comprehensive, consistent review process that includes a detailed checklist that reliability coordinators must use to identify design and implementation aspects of the remedial action schemes that are critical to an effective framework.\82\ NERC also stated that allowing four months to complete this detailed review is consistent with industry practice, provides adequate time for a complete review, and includes additional flexibility for unique or unforeseen circumstances.\83\ While four calendar months may be longer than what is typical in the Western Interconnection, we determine that NERC's proposal is reasonable because it provides a single, consistent, continent-wide timeframe for reviews. Moreover, as Bonneville recognizes, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 permits entities to use a mutually agreed upon schedule instead of the four- month default timeline provided for in Requirement R2. Accordingly, Bonneville's request is denied on this issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \82\ NERC Petition at 17. \83\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Information Collection Statement 35. 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.\84\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\85\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \84\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). \85\ 5 CFR 1320.11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36. Public Reporting Burden: The number of respondents below is based on an examination of the NERC compliance registry for reliability coordinators, planning coordinators, transmission owners, generation owners, and distribution providers and an estimation of how many entities from that registry will be affected by the proposed Reliability Standard. At the time of Commission review of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, 15 reliability coordinators, 71 planning coordinators, 328 transmission owners, 930 generation owners, and 367 distribution providers in the United States were registered in the NERC compliance registry. However, under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting. The Commission notes that many generation sites share a common generation owner. 37. Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 are in the Reliability Standards approved in FERC-725A, (OMB Control No. 1902- 0244). Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 will be retired when Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 becomes effective, which will reduce the burden in FERC-725A.\86\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \86\ The Commission is being conservative and not subtracting hours at this time from FERC-725A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are coordinated to provide the service to the system as intended. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves upon the existing Reliability Standards because it removes ambiguity in NERC's original ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standards by assigning responsibility to appropriate [[Page 44924]] functional entities. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 also streamlines and consolidates the remedial action scheme Reliability Standards into one clear, effective Reliability Standard under Information Collection FERC-725G. 39. The following table illustrates the estimated burden to be applied to FERC-725G information collection.\87\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \87\ In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated as ``Eng.'' and record keeping is abbreviated as ``R.K.'' FERC-725G in RM16-20-000 [Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Average burden Annual burden Requirement and respondent Number of responses per Total number hours & cost per hours & total category for PRC-012-2 respondents respondent of responses response \88\ annual cost (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4)............. (3) * (4) = (5) (3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R1. Each RAS-entity (TO, GO, 1,595 1 1,595 (Eng.) 24 hrs. 57,420 hrs. DP). ($1,543); (38,280 Eng., (R.K.) 12 hrs. 19,140 R.K.); ($453). $3,183,556 ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535 R.K.) R2. Each Reliability 15 1 15 (Eng.) 16 hrs. 300 hrs. (240 Coordinator. ($1,029); Eng., 60 (R.K.) 4 hrs. R.K.); $17,695 ($151). ($15,430 Eng., $2,265 R.K.) R4. Each Planning Coordinator 71 1 71 (Eng.) 16 hrs. 1,420 hrs. ($1,029); (1,136 Eng., (R.K.) 4 hrs. 284 R.K.); ($151). $85,754 ($73,033 Eng., $10,721 R.K.) R5, R6, R7, and R8. Each RAS- 1,595 1 1,595 (Eng.) 24 hrs. 57,420 hrs. entity (TO, GO, DP). ($1,543); (38,280 Eng., (R.K.) 12 hrs. 19,140 R.K.); ($453). $3,183,556 ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535 R.K.) R9. Each Reliability 15 1 15 (Eng.) 10 hrs. 210 hrs. (150 Coordinator. ($653); (R.K.) Eng., 60 4 hrs. ($151). R.K.); $11,909 ($9,644 Eng., $2,265 R.K.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................... .............. .............. 3,291 ................ 116,770 hrs. (78,086 Eng., 38,684 R.K.); $6,480,470 ($5,020,149 Eng.; $1,460,321 R.K.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title: FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards); FERC-725G (Mandatory Reliability Standards: PRC-012-2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \88\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Burden Hours per Response * $/hour = Cost per Response. The $64.29/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.75/hour figure for a record clerk are based on the average salary plus benefits data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action: Revision to existing collections. OMB Control No: 1902-0244 (FERC-725A); 1902-0252 (FERC-725G). Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit institutions. Frequency of Responses: Annually. Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are coordinated to provide the service to the system as intended. 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. 40. 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: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873]. 41. Comments concerning the information collection in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates should 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: [email protected]. Please reference FERC-725A and FERC-725G and the docket number of this Final Rule, Docket No. RM16-20-000, in your submission. IV. Environmental Analysis 42. 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.\89\ The action proposed here falls within the categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\90\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \89\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987). \90\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 43. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\91\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \91\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will apply to approximately 1681 entities in the United States.\92\ The Commission did not receive any comments on the impact on small entities. Comparison of the applicable entities with the Commission's small business data indicates that approximately 1,025 are small entities or 61 percent of the respondents affected by proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\93\ The Commission estimates for these small entities, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 may need to be evaluated and documented every five years with a cost of $6,322 for each evaluation. The Commission views this as a minimal economic impact for each entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \92\ NOPR, 158 FERC ] 61,042 at P 26. \93\ 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 rulemaking, we apply a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 44925]] VI. Document Availability 45. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 46. 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. 47. 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 [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502- 8371, TTY (202)502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]. VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 48. The final rule is effective November 27, 2017. 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 20, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. Appendix Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) Edison Electric Institute (EEI) International Transmission Company d/b/a ITC Transmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC and ITC Great Plains, LLC (together, ITC) Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) New York Independent System Operator, Independent Electricity System Operator, ISO New England, Inc. and Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (together, Joint ISOs) North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) [FR Doc. 2017-20669 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
![44918 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
employees’’). In the Pay Ratio Release, based on the compensation measure it would be consistent with Item 402(u)
we acknowledged that the inclusion of used to select the median employee.18 for a registrant to apply a widely
non-U.S. employees would raise recognized test under another area of
C. Independent Contractors
compliance costs for multinational law that the registrant otherwise uses to
companies.15 To address concerns about For purposes of Item 402(u), the term determine whether its workers are
compliance costs, the rule permits ‘‘employee’’ or ‘‘employee of the employees.26
registrants to exempt non-U.S. registrant’’ is defined as ‘‘an individual
By the Commission.
employees where these employees employed by the registrant or any of its
consolidated subsidiaries.’’ 19 Item Dated: September 21, 2017.
account for 5% or less of the registrant’s
402(u)(3) excludes from the definition Brent J. Fields,
total U.S. and non-U.S. employees, with
certain limitations.16 We are clarifying those workers who are employed, and Secretary.
that a registrant may use appropriate whose compensation is determined, by [FR Doc. 2017–20632 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am]
existing internal records, such as tax or an unaffiliated third party but who BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
payroll records, in determining whether provide services to the registrant or its
the 5% de minimis exemption is consolidated subsidiaries as
available.17 independent contractors or ‘‘leased’’
workers.20 In the Pay Ratio Release, the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
2. Median Employee Commission indicated that excluding
these workers is appropriate, because Federal Energy Regulatory
We also believe that the use of
registrants generally do not control the Commission
existing internal records may, in many
circumstances, be appropriate in level of compensation that these
workers are paid.21 18 CFR Part 40
identifying a registrant’s median
employee. Instruction 4 to Item 402(u) Some commenters have expressed
permits a registrant to identify its concerns about the application of the [Docket No. RM16–20–000; Order No. 837]
median employee using a consistently rule’s definition of ‘‘employee.’’ 22
Because registrants already make Remedial Action Schemes Reliability
applied compensation measure, such as
determinations as to whether a worker Standard
information derived from the
registrant’s tax or payroll records. We is an employee or independent
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory
are clarifying that a registrant may use contractor in other legal and regulatory
Commission, DOE.
internal records that reasonably reflect contexts, such as for employment law or
tax purposes, some commenters ACTION: Final rule.
annual compensation to identify the
median employee, even if those records suggested that the Commission should
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy
do not include every element of allow registrants to use widely
Regulatory Commission approves
compensation, such as equity awards recognized tests to determine who is an
Reliability Standard PRC–012–2
widely distributed to employees. ‘‘employee’’ for purposes of the rule.23
(Remedial Action Schemes) submitted
Such a test might, for example, be
We recognize that, when calculating by the North American Electric
drawn from guidance published by the
total compensation in accordance with Reliability Corporation. The purpose of
Internal Revenue Service with respect to
Item 402(c)(2)(x) for the identified Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 is to
independent contractors.24
median employee that the registrant ensure that remedial action schemes do
Item 402(u)(3) makes clear that an
identified using a consistently applied not introduce unintentional or
‘‘employee’’ is an individual employed
compensation measure based on unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk
by the registrant.25 The provision in
internal records, the registrant may electric system.
Item 402(u)(3) indicating that the
determine that there are anomalous DATES: This rule will become effective
definition of ‘‘employee’’ does not
characteristics of the identified median November 27, 2017.
include workers who are employed, and
employee’s compensation that have a
whose compensation is determined, by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
significant higher or lower impact on
an unaffiliated third party describes one Syed Ahmad (Technical Information),
the pay ratio. The Commission
category of workers that is expressly Office of Electric Reliability, Division
discussed this issue in the adopting
excluded from the definition of of Reliability Standards and Security,
release specifically and noted that, in
‘‘employee’’ under the rule. The 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
such a circumstance, instead of
provision was not intended to serve as 20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8718,
concluding that the consistently applied
an exclusive basis for determining Syed.Ahmad@ferc.gov.
compensation measure the registrant
whether a worker is an employee of the Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office
used was unsuitable to identify its
registrant. Accordingly, we believe it of the General Counsel, Federal
median employee, the registrant may
substitute another employee with Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
18 See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50137–
substantially similar compensation to First Street NE., Washington, DC
50138 (providing that the registrant must disclose
the original identified median employee the substitution as part of its brief description of the
20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8502,
methodology it used to identify the median Alan.Rukin@ferc.gov.
15 See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at 50122—
employee). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
19 17 CFR 229.402(u)(3).
50133. 20 Id.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
16 17 CFR 229.402(u)(4)(ii). See also Pay Ratio 26 Because we believe most widely recognized
21 See Pay Ratio Release, supra note 1, at Section
Release, supra note 1, at 50124–50125 (noting that tests likely will consider how compensation is
registrants using the de minimis exemption are 50165–50166.
22 See, e.g., letters from Davis Polk, FSR, SCG, and
determined as a factor in identifying a registrant’s
required to provide certain disclosures). employees, we believe these tests generally would
17 See, e.g., Instruction 1 to Item 402(u) of Insurance Coalition. provide a reasonable means of complying with Item
23 See, e.g., letters from Davis Polk and Insurance
Regulation S–K (17 CFR 229.402(u)) and Pay Ratio 402(u). See, e.g., note 24. The description of the
Release, supra note 1, at 50119—50120 (indicating Coalition. methodology required by Instruction 4 of Item
24 See, e.g., Publication 15–A Employer’s
that determination of the median employee may be 402(u) requires a registrant to include an
made on any date within the last three months of Supplemental Tax Guide (2017). explanation of any material assumptions and
the registrant’s last completed fiscal year). 25 17 CFR 229.402(u)(3). adjustments used.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_45104/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 44919
Order No. 837 Misoperation).5 Reliability Standard procedures for this assessment and
Final Rule PRC–015–1 requires transmission documentation.10 The Commission
owners, generator owners, and stated that it would not approve or
(Issued September 20, 2017) distribution providers to maintain a remand proposed Reliability Standards
listing; retain evidence of review; and PRC–012–0, PRC–013–0 or PRC–014–0
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the provide documentation of existing, new until NERC submitted the additional
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal or functionally modified special necessary information to the
Energy Regulatory Commission protection systems.6 Reliability Commission.11
(Commission) approves Reliability Standard PRC–016–1 requires
Standard PRC–012–2 (Remedial Action transmission owners, generator owners, C. Remedial Action Schemes
Schemes).1 The North American Electric and distribution providers to provide 5. On June 23, 2016, the Commission
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the the regional reliability organization with approved NERC’s revision to the NERC
Commission-certified Electric documentation, analyses and corrective Glossary of Terms Used in NERC
Reliability Organization (ERO), action plans for misoperation of special Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary)
submitted Reliability Standard PRC– protection systems.7 that redefines special protection system
012–2 for approval. The purpose of 4. In Order No. 693, the Commission to have the same definition as remedial
Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 is to determined that then-proposed action scheme, effective April 1, 2017.12
ensure that remedial action schemes do Reliability Standard PRC–012–0 was a The NERC Glossary defines remedial
not introduce unintentional or ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ Reliability Standard action scheme to mean:
unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk because, while it would require regional
electric system. In addition, the A scheme designed to detect
reliability organizations to ensure that predetermined System conditions and
Commission approves the associated all special protection systems are automatically take corrective actions that
violation risk factors and violation properly designed, meet performance may include, but are not limited to, adjusting
severity levels, implementation plan, requirements, and are coordinated with or tripping generation (MW and Mvar),
and effective date proposed by NERC. other protection systems, NERC had not tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s).
The Commission also approves the submitted any regional review [Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)]
retirement of currently-effective procedures with the proposed accomplish objectives such as:
Reliability Standards PRC–015–1 and Reliability Standard.8 Similarly, the • Meet requirements identified in the
PRC–016–1 as well as NERC’s request to NERC Reliability Standards;
Commission determined that proposed
withdraw proposed Reliability • Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES)
Reliability Standard PRC–013–0 was a stability;
Standards PRC–012–1, PRC–013–1, and ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ Reliability Standard • Maintain acceptable BES voltages;
PRC–014–1, which are now pending because, although it was intended to • Maintain acceptable BES power flows;
before the Commission. ensure that all special protection • Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme
I. Background systems are properly designed, meet events.13
performance requirements, and are The revised remedial action scheme
A. Section 215 and Mandatory coordinated with other protection definition also identifies fourteen items
Reliability Standards systems by requiring the regional that do not individually constitute a
reliability organization to maintain a remedial action scheme.
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a database of information on special
Commission-certified ERO to develop protection systems, NERC had not filed D. NERC Petition and Reliability
mandatory and enforceable Reliability any regional procedures for maintaining Standard PRC–012–2
Standards, subject to Commission the databases.9 Further, the Commission
review and approval.2 Once approved, 6. On August 5, 2016, NERC
determined that proposed Reliability submitted a petition seeking
the Reliability Standards may be Standard PRC–014–0 was a ‘‘fill-in-the-
enforced by the ERO subject to Commission approval of proposed
blank’’ Reliability Standard because, Reliability Standard PRC–012–2.14
Commission oversight or by the while it was proposed to ensure that
Commission independently.3 In 2006, NERC contended that Reliability
special protection systems are properly Standard PRC–012–2 is just, reasonable,
the Commission certified NERC as the designed, meet performance not unduly discriminatory or
ERO pursuant to section 215 of the requirements, and are coordinated with preferential, and in the public interest.15
FPA.4 other protection systems by requiring NERC explained that the intent of
B. Order No. 693 the regional reliability organization to
assess and document the operation, 10 Id. PP 1525, 1526, 1528.
3. On March 16, 2007, the coordination, and compliance with 11 Id. PP 1520, 1524, 1528.
Commission issued Order No. 693, NERC Reliability Standards and 12 N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., Docket No.
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability effectiveness of special protection RD16–5–000 (June 23, 2016) (delegated letter order);
Standards filed by NERC, including systems at least once every five years, NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/
glossary_of_terms.pdf.
Reliability Standards PRC–015–1 NERC had not submitted any regional 13 NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/
(Remedial Action Scheme Data and glossary_of_terms.pdf; see also Revisions to
Documentation) and PRC–016–1 5 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-
Emergency Operations Reliability Standards;
(Remedial Action Scheme Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding
¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). ‘‘Remedial Action Scheme’’ and Related Reliability
1 16 U.S.C. 824o. 6 Id. PP 1529–1533. Standards, Order No. 818, 153 FERC ¶ 61,228, at
2 Id. 824o(c), (d). 7 Id. PP 1534–1540. PP 24, 31 (2015).
3 Id. 824o(e). 8 Id. PP 1517–18, 1520. The Commission used the 14 Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 is not attached
4 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 term ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ standards to refer to to this Final Rule. The Reliability Standard is
FERC ¶ 61,062 (ERO Certification Order), order on proposed Reliability Standards that required the available on the Commission’s eLibrary document
reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), regional reliability organizations to develop at a retrieval system in Docket No. RM16–20–000 and
order on compliance, 118 FERC ¶ 61,190, order on later date criteria for use by users, owners or is posted on NERC’s Web site, http://
reh’g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2007), aff’d sub nom. operators within each region. Id. P 297. www.nerc.com.
Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 9 Id. PP 1521, 1522, 1524. 15 NERC Petition at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_45104/page/2.svg)
![44920 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 is to Standard PRC–015–1 into Reliability Part 4.1.5 exempts ‘‘limited impact’’
supersede ‘‘pending’’ Reliability Standard PRC–012–2, Requirements R1, remedial action schemes from certain
Standards PRC–012–1, PRC–013–1, and R2, and R3.23 NERC also asserted that it aspects of Reliability Standard PRC–
PRC–014–1 and to retire and replace integrated the performance 012–2, Requirement R4 does not exempt
currently-effective Reliability Standards requirements in Reliability Standard ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial actions
PRC–015–1 and PRC–016–1.16 NERC PRC–016–1 into Reliability Standard schemes from meeting each of the
stated that Reliability Standard PRC– PRC–012–2, Requirements R5, R6, and performance requirements in Reliability
012–2 represents substantial R7.24 Standard TPL–001–4.30
improvements over these Reliability 9. NERC explained how the nine 11. NERC stated that prior to
Standards because it streamlines and Requirements in Reliability Standard development of Reliability Standard
consolidates existing requirements; PRC- 012–2 work together and with PRC–012–2, two NERC Regions, the
corrects the applicability of previously other Reliability Standards. According Northeast Power Coordinating Council
unapproved Reliability Standards; and to NERC, Requirements R1, R2, and R3, (NPCC) and the Western Electric
implements a continent-wide remedial together, establish a process for the Coordinating Council (WECC), used
action scheme review program.17 reliability coordinator to review new or their own remedial action scheme
7. NERC stated that, in the United modified remedial action schemes.25 classification regimes to identify
States, Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 The reliability coordinator must remedial action schemes that would
will apply to reliability coordinators, complete the review before an entity meet criteria similar to those for
planning coordinators, and remedial places a new or functionally modified remedial action schemes described as
action scheme-entities. Reliability remedial action scheme into service. ‘‘limited impact’’ in Reliability Standard
Standard PRC–012–2 defines remedial 10. Requirement R4 requires the PRC–012–2.31 NERC continued that the
action scheme-entities to include each planning coordinator to perform a standard drafting team identified the
transmission owner, generation owner, periodic evaluation of each remedial Local Area Protection Scheme (LAPS)
or distribution provider that owns all or action scheme within its planning area, classification in WECC and the Type III
part of a remedial action scheme. at least once every five years.26 The classification in NPCC as consistent
8. NERC stated that Reliability evaluation must determine, inter alia, with the ‘‘limited impact’’
Standard PRC–012–2 includes nine whether each remedial action scheme: designation.32 According to NERC,
requirements that combine all existing (1) Mitigates the system conditions or remedial action schemes implemented
(both effective and ‘‘pending’’) contingencies for which it was prior to the effective date of Reliability
Reliability Standards mentioned above designed; and (2) avoids adverse Standard PRC–012–2 that have gone
into a single, consolidated, continent- interactions with other remedial action through the regional review processes of
wide Reliability Standard to address all scheme and protection systems. WECC or NPCC and that are classified
aspects of remedial action schemes.18 Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 as either a LAPS by WECC or a Type III
NERC explained that all of the defines a certain subset of remedial by NPCC would be considered a
requirements in Reliability Standard action schemes as ‘‘limited impact.’’ ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action
PRC–012–1 except R2 are now covered Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 scheme for purposes of Reliability
in Requirements R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, states: ‘‘A RAS designated as limited Standard PRC–012–2.33
and R8 of Reliability Standard PRC– impact cannot, by inadvertent operation 12. Requirements R5, R6, and R7
012–2.19 NERC maintained that or failure to operate, cause or contribute pertain to the analysis of each remedial
Reliability Standard PRC–012–1, to BES Cascading, uncontrolled action scheme operation or
Requirement R2 is ‘‘administrative in separation, angular instability, voltage misoperation.34 A remedial action
nature and does not contribute to instability, voltage collapse, or scheme-entity must perform an analysis
reliability.’’ 20 NERC also stated that it of each remedial action scheme
unacceptably damped oscillations.’’ 27
established Reliability Standard PRC– operation or misoperation and provide
Further, Requirement R4, Parts 4.1.3,
012–2, Requirement R9 to replace the the results to the reviewing reliability
4.1.4, and 4.1.5 provide certain
mandate in Reliability Standard PRC– coordinator. Further, the remedial
exceptions to ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial
013–1 that responsible entities maintain action scheme-entity must develop and
action schemes. For example, Part 4.1.5
a remedial action scheme database with
states that: submit a corrective action plan to the
pertinent technical information for each
Except for limited impact RAS, a single reviewing reliability coordinator after
remedial action scheme.21 NERC
component failure in the RAS, when the RAS learning of a deficiency with its
explained that Reliability Standard
is intended to operate does not prevent the remedial action scheme, implement the
PRC–012–2, Requirements R4 and R6
BES from meeting the same performance corrective action plan, and update it as
cover the review and the mandate to
requirements (defined in Reliability Standard necessary. Requirement R8 requires
take corrective action required by TPL–001–4 or its successor) as those required periodic testing of remedial action
Reliability Standard PRC–014–1.22 for the events and conditions for which the scheme performance: Every six years for
NERC stated that it integrated the RAS is designed.28 normal remedial action schemes and
performance requirements in Reliability
NERC explained that Requirement R4 every 12 years for ‘‘limited impact’’
16 NERC noted that it submitted ‘‘for
‘‘does not supersede or modify remedial action schemes.35 Requirement
completeness’’ revised versions of Reliability [planning coordinator] responsibilities R9 requires the reliability coordinator to
Standards PRC–012–1, PRC–013–1, and PRC–014– under Reliability Standard TPL–001– annually update its remedial action
1 in its petition to revise the definition of remedial
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
4.’’ 29 NERC continued that even though scheme database.36
action scheme, but NERC did not request
Commission approval of the revised Reliability
23 Id. at 43–44. 30 Id. at 28–29.
Standards in that proceeding. Id. at 1 n.5.
17 Id. at 12–13. 24 Id. at 44–45. 31 Id. at 25.
18 Id. at 3. 25 Id. at 15–18. 32 Id.at 25–26.
19 Id. at 40. 26 Id. at 18–22. 33 Id. at 26.
20 Id. at 41. 27 Id. at 19 & n.44. 34 Id. at 29–34.
21 Id. at 42. 28 Id. at 19. 35 Id. at 34–36.
22 Id.at 43. 29 Id. at 28. 36 Id. at 36–38.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_45104/page/3.svg)
![44922 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
22. EEI questions the relevancy of B. Definition of ‘‘Limited Impact’’ the footnote in Reliability Standard
asking the industry to comment on Remedial Action Schemes PRC–012–2 only reiterates the
WECC LAPS or NPCC Type III remedial substantive requirements of ‘‘limited
NOPR
action schemes reclassification as impact’’ remedial action schemes under
‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action 25. The NOPR sought comment on Requirement R4.3.1 and does not clarify
schemes.53 EEI contends that once the whether NERC should define the term how ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action
Commission approves Reliability ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action schemes differ from normal remedial
Standard PRC–012–2, WECC and NPCC schemes in the NERC Glossary. action schemes.66 Bonneville proposes
must be compliant regardless. EEI Comments the following definition for ‘‘limited
believes that insights into processes impact’’ remedial action schemes:
ensuring compliance with Reliability 26. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI contend
that NERC should not define the term A remedial action scheme whose operation
Standard PRC–012–2 are irrelevant.54 or misoperation only affects the local area
‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action
defined by the RAS-entity that owns all of
Commission Determination scheme in the NERC Glossary.57 NERC part of the remedial action scheme and does
23. We adopt our NOPR proposal and states that it typically develops terms in not affect the BES of any adjacent
clarify that Reliability Standard PRC– the NERC Glossary for one of two Transmission Owners, Transmission
012–2 does not modify or supersede any reasons: ‘‘(1) To establish a single Operators, Generation Owners, or Generation
system performance obligations under meaning for a term or concept used Operators.67
Reliability Standard TPL–001–4. We across several different Reliability ITC also states that the Commission
agree with and, thus, adopt NERC’s Standards or multiple times within a should issue a directive to NERC to
explanation: single Reliability Standard, or (2) to define ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action
provide for a more readable standard by schemes in the NERC Glossary.68 ITC
Nothing in proposed Reliability Standard creating a shorthand reference to avoid
PRC–012–2 or the designation of a RAS as states that doing so avoids confusion
‘‘limited impact’’ exempts an entity from
unnecessary repetition.’’ 58 NERC while ensuring consistency, facilitates
meeting its performance requirements under contends that neither reason exists for the use of the term in other Reliability
[Reliability Standard] TPL–001–4, including ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action Standards, and enhances the overall
the requirement that Non-Consequential schemes.59 usefulness of the NERC Glossary.69
Load Loss may not exceed 75 MW for certain 27. NERC and EEI maintain that
Category P1, P2, or P3 contingencies, as remedial action schemes vary widely in Commission Determination
provided in Table 1 and footnote 12 of TPL– complexity and impact on the bulk 30. We determine not to require NERC
001–4. electric system.60 NERC and EEI explain to define ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial
In performing the assessments required that NERC should not define ‘‘limited action schemes in the NERC Glossary.
pursuant to Reliability Standard TPL–001–4, impact’’ remedial action schemes
an entity must consider all RAS, whether We agree with NERC, Joint ISOs, and
designated as ‘‘limited impact’’ or not. While
because not all remedial action schemes EEI that a definition of ‘‘limited impact’’
Reliability Standard TPL–001–4, impact the bulk electric system remedial action schemes is unnecessary
Requirement R2, Part 2.7.1 recognizes that similarly and the diversity of remedial at this time given the diversity among
entities may use a RAS as a method for action schemes makes it difficult to the different types, functions, and
meeting the performance obligations of Table establish a common definition for North placements of remedial action schemes
1, TPL–001–4 does not distinguish between America.61 across North America. In addition, only
different types of RAS. As such, entities must 28. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI assert Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 uses
satisfy the performance requirements of TPL– that other comprehensive lists may the term ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial
001–4 considering the actions of ‘‘limited establish a baseline definition for
impact’’ RAS and non-limited impact RAS action schemes, thus eliminating one of
‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action the principal reasons for normally
alike.55
schemes.62 Joint ISOs note that the including terms in the NERC Glossary
This clarification should help entities performance criteria described in (i.e., to establish a single meaning for a
avoid confusion regarding compliance Reliability Standard PRC–012–2, term or concept used across several
obligations when implementing PRC– Requirement 4.1.3, footnote 1 provide different Reliability Standards). Should
012–2. an adequate level of guidance.63 MISO this situation change, the Commission
24. In addition, we accept NERC’s contends that NERC need not define may reconsider this determination.
assurance that LAPS in WECC and Type ‘‘limited impact’’ remedial action
III remedial actions schemes in NPCC scheme in the NERC Glossary.64 C. Other Issues
must be compliant with Reliability 29. Bonneville and ITC contend that Comments
Standard TPL–001–4 before and after NERC should define the term ‘‘limited
the effective date of proposed Reliability impact’’ remedial action schemes in the 31. MISO contends that the
Standard PRC–012–2.56 NERC Glossary.65Bonneville states that Commission should not approve
Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 as
53 EEI Comments at 5. found in the ‘‘Technical Justification’’ section of proposed.70 MISO contends that
54 Id.
Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 were not submitted oversight of remedial action schemes
55 NERC Comments at 5. In response to the for approval by NERC and as such are not part of would be difficult for reliability
requests by Joint ISOs and NESCOE for this proceeding. coordinators and planning coordinators
confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL–001–4 57 NERC Comments at 8; Joint ISO Comments at
allows responsible entities to assume that all 3; EEI at 5.
when remedial action schemes span
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
remedial action schemes operate properly, the 58 NERC Comments at 8. multiple footprints.71 MISO also
Commission declines to interpret Reliability 59 Id. contends that Reliability Standard PRC–
Standard TPL–001–4 in this proceeding. However, 60 NERC Comments at 9; EEI Comments at 5.
this Final Rule approving Reliability Standard PRC– 66 Bonneville
61 Id. Comments at 2.
012–2 in no way modifies the requirements of 67 Id.
62 NERC Comments at 9; Joint ISO Comments at
Reliability Standard TPL–001–4 or the compliance
obligations associated with Reliability Standard 3; EEI Comments at 6. 68 ITC Comments at 1.
63 Joint ISO Comments at 3–4. 69 Id. at 2.
TPL–001–4.
56 We note that WECC’s and NPCC’s remedial 64 MISO Comments at 6. 70 MISO Comments at 2.
action scheme criteria and associated regional terms 65 Bonneville Comments at 2; ITC Comments at 1. 71 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_45104/page/5.svg)
![44924 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
functional entities. Reliability Standard Reliability Standards into one clear, 39. The following table illustrates the
PRC–012–2 also streamlines and effective Reliability Standard under estimated burden to be applied to
consolidates the remedial action scheme Information Collection FERC–725G. FERC–725G information collection.87
FERC–725G IN RM16–20–000
[Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC–012–2]
Requirement and Number of
Number of Total number Average burden hours & cost
respondent category for PRC– responses per Annual burden hours & total annual cost
respondents of responses per response 88
012–2 respondent
(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5)
R1. Each RAS-entity (TO, GO, 1,595 1 1,595 (Eng.) 24 hrs. ($1,543); (R.K.) 57,420 hrs. (38,280 Eng., 19,140 R.K.);
DP). 12 hrs. ($453). $3,183,556 ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535
R.K.)
R2. Each Reliability Coordi- 15 1 15 (Eng.) 16 hrs. ($1,029); (R.K.) 300 hrs. (240 Eng., 60 R.K.); $17,695
nator. 4 hrs. ($151). ($15,430 Eng., $2,265 R.K.)
R4. Each Planning Coordinator 71 1 71 (Eng.) 16 hrs. ($1,029); (R.K.) 1,420 hrs. (1,136 Eng., 284 R.K.); $85,754
4 hrs. ($151). ($73,033 Eng., $10,721 R.K.)
R5, R6, R7, and R8. Each 1,595 1 1,595 (Eng.) 24 hrs. ($1,543); (R.K.) 57,420 hrs. (38,280 Eng., 19,140 R.K.);
RAS-entity (TO, GO, DP). 12 hrs. ($453). $3,183,556 ($2,461,021 Eng., $722,535
R.K.)
R9. Each Reliability Coordi- 15 1 15 (Eng.) 10 hrs. ($653); (R.K.) 4 210 hrs. (150 Eng., 60 R.K.); $11,909 ($9,644
nator. hrs. ($151). Eng., $2,265 R.K.)
Total ................................... ........................ ........................ 3,291 .................................................. 116,770 hrs. (78,086 Eng., 38,684 R.K.);
$6,480,470 ($5,020,149 Eng.; $1,460,321
R.K.)
Title: FERC–725A (Mandatory DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Reliability Standards); FERC–725G 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
(Mandatory Reliability Standards: PRC– 43. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
41. Comments concerning the 1980 (RFA) generally requires a
012–2). information collection in this Final Rule
Action: Revision to existing description and analysis of proposed
and the associated burden estimates rules that will have significant
collections. should be sent to the Office of
OMB Control No: 1902–0244 (FERC– economic impact on a substantial
Management and Budget, Office of number of small entities.91
725A); 1902–0252 (FERC–725G).
Information and Regulatory Affairs
Respondents: Business or other for 44. In the NOPR, the Commission
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
profit, and not for profit institutions. proposed that Reliability Standard PRC–
Energy Regulatory Commission]. For
Frequency of Responses: Annually. 012–2 will apply to approximately 1681
security reasons, comments should be entities in the United States.92 The
Necessity of the Information:
Reliability Standard PRC–012–2 sets sent by email to OMB at the following Commission did not receive any
forth Requirements for remedial action email address: oira_submission@ comments on the impact on small
schemes to ensure that remedial action omb.eop.gov. Please reference FERC– entities. Comparison of the applicable
schemes do not introduce unintentional 725A and FERC–725G and the docket entities with the Commission’s small
or unacceptable reliability risks to the number of this Final Rule, Docket No. business data indicates that
bulk electric system and are coordinated RM16–20–000, in your submission. approximately 1,025 are small entities
to provide the service to the system as IV. Environmental Analysis or 61 percent of the respondents
intended. affected by proposed Reliability
Internal Review: The Commission has 42. The Commission is required to Standard PRC–012–2.93 The
assured itself, by means of its internal prepare an Environmental Assessment Commission estimates for these small
review, that there is specific, objective or an Environmental Impact Statement entities, Reliability Standard PRC–012–
support for the burden estimates for any action that may have a 2 may need to be evaluated and
associated with the information significant adverse effect on the human documented every five years with a cost
requirements. environment.89 The action proposed of $6,322 for each evaluation. The
40. Interested persons may obtain here falls within the categorical Commission views this as a minimal
information on the reporting exclusion in the Commission’s economic impact for each entity.
requirements by contacting the Federal regulations for rules that are clarifying, Accordingly, the Commission certifies
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office corrective or procedural, for information that Reliability Standard PRC–012–2
of the Executive Director, 888 First gathering, analysis, and will not have a significant economic
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 impact on a substantial number of small
dissemination.90
[Attention: Ellen Brown, email: entities.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
87 In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated 89 Regulations Implementing the National Public utilities may fall under one of several
as ‘‘Eng.’’ and record keeping is abbreviated as Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, different categories, each with a size threshold
‘‘R.K.’’ 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. based on the company’s number of employees,
88 The estimates for cost per response are derived
Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). including affiliates, the parent company, and
using the following formula: Burden Hours per 90 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). subsidiaries. For the analysis in this rulemaking, we
Response * $/hour = Cost per Response. The 91 5 U.S.C. 601–612. apply a 500 employee threshold for each affected
$64.29/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.75/
hour figure for a record clerk are based on the
92 NOPR, 158 FERC ¶ 61,042 at P 26. entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk
average salary plus benefits data from the Bureau 93 The Small Business Administration sets the Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code
of Labor Statistics. threshold for what constitutes a small business. 221121).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_45104/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 44925
VI. Document Availability North American Electric Reliability of proposed rulemaking. No public
Corporation (NERC) hearing was requested. After careful
45. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal [FR Doc. 2017–20669 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] consideration of the written comments,
Register, the Commission provides all BILLING CODE 6717–01–P the proposed regulations are adopted as
interested persons an opportunity to modified by this Treasury Decision.
view and/or print the contents of this Explanation and Summary of
document via the Internet through the DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY Comments
Commission’s Home Page (http://
Internal Revenue Service All of the written comments on the
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
notice of proposed rulemaking were
Public Reference Room during normal
26 CFR Part 31 considered and are available at
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
www.regulations.gov or upon request.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., [TD 9824] Many of these comments addressed
Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
46. From the Commission’s Home RIN 1545–BN58 similar issues and expressed similar
Page on the Internet, this information is points of view. These comments are
available on eLibrary. The full text of Withholding on Payments of Certain summarized in this preamble.
this document is available on eLibrary Gambling Winnings
Rule for Determining the Amount of the
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Wager in the Case of Horse Races, Dog
viewing, printing, and/or downloading. Treasury. Races, and Jai Alai
To access this document in eLibrary, ACTION: Final regulations. The proposed regulations contained a
type the docket number excluding the new rule for determining the amount of
last three digits of this document in the SUMMARY: This document contains final the wager in the case of horse races, dog
docket number field. regulations with respect to the races, and jai alai to allow all wagers
47. User assistance is available for withholding from, and the information placed in a single parimutuel pool and
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site reporting on, certain payments of represented on a single ticket to be
during normal business hours from gambling winnings from horse races, aggregated and treated as a single wager.
FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 dog races, and jai alai and on certain Commenters largely supported the
(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at other payments of gambling winnings. proposed rules because they believe that
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the The final regulations affect both payers the rules accurately and fairly reflect
Public Reference Room at (202) 502– and payees of the gambling winnings. parimutuel wagering realities.
8371, TTY (202)502–8659. Email the DATES: Effective date: These regulations Some commenters raised concerns
Public Reference Room at are effective on September 27, 2017. that the single ticket requirement in the
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. Applicability Dates: For dates of proposed regulations did not address
VII. Effective Date and Congressional applicability, see §§ 31.3402(q)–1(g) and electronic wagering. Commenters stated
Notification 31.3406(g)–2(h). that in horse racing a paper ticket can
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: only accommodate six separate lines of
48. The final rule is effective
November 27, 2017. The Commission David Bergman, (202) 317–6845 (not a bets. In contrast, electronic wagering
has determined, with the concurrence of toll-free number). utilizes an ‘‘account wagering’’ system
the Administrator of the Office of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that can accommodate dozens (or even
Information and Regulatory Affairs of hundreds) of lines of bets in a single
Background parimutuel pool, allowing bettors to
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small This document contains final place more, customized wagers. As a
Business Regulatory Enforcement regulations in Title 26 of the Code of result, some commenters requested a
Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is Federal Regulations under section 3402 special rule for electronic wagering.
of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The proposed rule at § 31.3402(q)–
being submitted to the Senate, House,
The final regulations amend, update, 1(c)(1)(ii) is specifically not limited to a
and Government Accountability Office.
and clarify the existing withholding and paper ticket, but also includes an
By the Commission. information reporting requirements for electronic record that is presented to
Issued: September 20, 2017. certain gambling winnings under collect proceeds from a wager or wagers
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., § 31.3402(q)–1 of the Employment Tax placed in a single parimutuel pool.
Deputy Secretary. Regulations, and make conforming Therefore, the rule in proposed
changes to § 31.3406(g)–2. § 31.3402(q)–1(c)(1)(ii) is not dependent
Appendix
On December 30, 2016, the Treasury on the applicable industry’s ticketing
Bonneville Power Administration Department and the IRS published a format. Further, despite the commenters
(Bonneville) notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– concern regarding the limits on the
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 123841–16) in the Federal Register, 81 number of lines a paper ticket can
International Transmission Company d/b/a
ITC Transmission, Michigan Electric FR 96406, containing proposed accommodate, the proposed regulations
Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest regulations that would provide a new do not limit the number of bets on a
LLC and ITC Great Plains, LLC (together, rule regarding how payers determine the single ticket nor do the proposed
ITC) amount of the wager in parimutuel regulations contain a rule governing the
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, wagering transactions with respect to number of bets that can be contained on
Inc. (MISO) horse races, dog races, and jai alai, and a single, electronic record of a wagering
New England States Committee on Electricity that would update the existing rules to transaction.
(NESCOE) Another commenter stated that the
New York Independent System Operator,
reflect current law regarding the
Independent Electricity System Operator, withholding thresholds and certain single ticket requirement puts a person
ISO New England, Inc. and Electric information reporting requirements. making an electronic bet at a
Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (together, Over 2,700 written public comments disadvantage because it removes the
Joint ISOs) were received in response to the notice opportunity to place bets in a single
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Sep 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27SER1.SGM 27SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_45104/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-24 14:48:58
Document Modified: 2018-10-24 14:48:58
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule will become effective November 27, 2017. | |
| Contact | Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards and Security, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8718, [email protected] Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8502, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 44918 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR