This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

74879 

Vol. 88, No. 210 

Wednesday, November 1, 2023 

1 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). 

2Reliability Standards MOD–001–1a (Available 

Transmission System Capability), MOD–004–1 

(Capacity Benefit Margin), MOD–008–1 

(Transmission Reliability Margin Calculation 

Methodology), MOD–028–2 (Area Interchange 

Methodology), MOD–029–2a (Rated System Path 

Methodology), and MOD–030–3 (Flowgate 

Methodology). 

3 16 U.S.C. 824o(c). 

4 Id. 824o(e). 

5Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. 

Reliability Org. & Procedures for the Establishment, 

Approval, & Enf’t. of Elec. Reliability Standards, 

Order No. 672, 114 FERC ¶ 61,104, order on reh’g, 

Order No. 672–A, 114 FERC ¶ 61,328 (2006). 

6N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 116 FERC 

¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC 

¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 

564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

7 Id. at 21–22. 

8NERC Petition at 18 (citing Preventing Undue 

Discrimination & Preference in Transmission Serv., 

Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007),118 

FERC ¶ 61,119, order on reh’g, Order No. 890–A,73 

FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008) 121 FERC ¶ 61,297 (2007), 

order on reh’g, Order No. 890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 

(2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 890–C, 74 FR 

12540 (Mar. 25, 2009), 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009); 

Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power 

Sys., Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), 

118 FERC ¶ 61,218, at PP 1020–1126 order on reh’g, 

Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007)). In 

2009, the Commission approved the six MOD 

Reliability Standards containing methodologies for 

calculating Available Transfer Capability (ATC) or 

Available Flowgate Capacity (AFC). See, Mandatory 

Reliability Standards for the Calculation of 

Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit 

Margins, Transmission Reliability Margins, Total 

Transfer Capability, & Existing Transmission 

Commitments & Mandatory Reliability Standards 

for the Bulk-Power Sys., Order No. 729, 74 FR 64884 

(Dec 8, 2009), 129 FERC ¶ 61,155 (2009), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 729–A,75 FR 26057 (May 11, 131 

FERC ¶ 61,109 (2010). 

9NERC Petition at 21. 

10Elec. Reliability Org. Proposal to Retire 

Requirements in Reliability Standards Under the 

NERC Standards Efficiency Rev., Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 170 FERC ¶ 61,032 (Jan. 23, 

2020) (NOPR). 

11 Id. P 21 n.35. 

12 Id. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM19–17–001; Order No. 902] 

Electric Reliability Organization 

Proposal To Retire Requirements in 

Reliability Standards Under the NERC 

Standards Efficiency Review 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

approves the retirement of six 

Reliability Standards and their 

requirements proposed by the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation, the Commission-certified 

Electric Reliability Organization. 

DATES: This action is effective February 

1, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gandolfo (Technical 

Information), Office of Electric 

Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 

(202) 502–6817 

Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8524 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. 

Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the 

Commission approves the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation’s (NERC) request to retire 

six Reliability Standards with a 

combined total of 56 requirements. For 

the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the retirement of six 

Reliability Standards (the MOD A 

Reliability Standards) 2 in their entirety 

is just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in 

the public interest. 

I. Background 

A. Section 215 of the FPA and the 

Mandatory Reliability Standards 

2. Section 215 of the FPA provides 

that the Commission may certify an 

ERO, the purpose of which is to develop 

mandatory and enforceable Reliability 

Standards, subject to Commission 

review and approval.3 Reliability 

Standards may be enforced by the ERO, 

subject to Commission oversight, or by 

the Commission independently.4

Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the 

Commission established a process to 

select and certify an ERO,5 and 

subsequently certified NERC.6

B. NERC Petition 

3. On June 7, 2019, NERC submitted 

a petition proposing, among other 

things, the retirement of the MOD A 

Reliability Standards, in their entirety 

without replacement (NERC Petition). 

NERC explained that these requirements 

are administrative in nature or relate 

expressly to commercial or business 

practices and provide little or no 

reliability benefit.7 NERC explained that 

the MOD A Reliability Standards were 

submitted in response to Commission’s 

directives in Order No. 890 and Order 

No. 693 to develop Reliability Standards 

‘‘to provide for consistency and 

transparency in the methodologies used 

by transmission providers to calculate 

[Available Transfer Capability].’’ 8 NERC 

clarified that ‘‘[Available Transfer 

Capability] and [Available Flowgate 

Methodology], as well as e-Tags, are 

commercially-focused elements 

facilitating interchange and balancing of 

interchange,’’ and that system operators 

maintain reliability by monitoring Realtime flows based on System Operating 

Limits and Interconnection Reliability 

Operating Limits.9

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

4. On January 23, 2020, the 

Commission issued a NOPR proposing 

to approve the retirement of 74 of the 77 

Reliability Standard requirements 

requested by NERC.10 In the NOPR, the 

Commission proposed, inter alia, to 

approve the retirement of the MOD A 

Reliability Standards, but noted that, if 

approved, the Commission intended to 

coordinate the effective dates for the 

retirement of the MOD A Reliability 

Standards with successor North 

American Energy Standards Board 

(NAESB) business practice standards.11

The Commission explained that 

equivalent NAESB business practice 

standards are expected to replace the 

MOD A Reliability Standards proposed 

for retirement.12

5. The Commission noted that NERC’s 

proposed retirements ‘‘are largely 

consistent with the Commissionapproved bases for retiring Reliability 

Standard requirements articulated in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
74880 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

13 Id. P 1 (citing N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 

138 FERC ¶ 61,193, at P 81 (March 2012 Order), 

order on reh’g and clarification, 139 FERC ¶ 61,168 

(2012); Elec. Reliability Org. Proposal to Retire 

Requirements in Reliability Standards, Order No. 

788, 78 FR 73424 (Dec. 6, 2013), 145 FERC ¶ 61,147, 

at P 1 (2013)). 

14 Id. P 25. 

15 Id. P 21. 

16See id. P 22 (citing NERC Petition at 21). 

17These two comments were received from the 

Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and 

the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). 

18Bonneville Comments at 3. 

19 Id. 

20WAPA Comments at 3. 

21 Id. at 5. 

22Elec. Reliability Org. Proposal to Retire 

Requirements in Reliability Standards Under the 

NERC Standards Efficiency Rev., Order No. 873, 

172 FERC ¶ 61,225 (2020). 

23NERC withdrew the originally requested 

retirement of Reliability Standard VAR–001–6, 

Requirement R2 on May 14, 2020. 

24 Id. P 4. 

25 Id. (citing Standards for Bus. Pracs. & Commc’n 

Protocols for Pub. Utils., Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 172 FERC ¶ 61,047 (2020)). 

26 Id. 

27Standards for Bus. Pracs. & Commc’n Protocols 

for Pub. Utils., Order No. 676–J, 86 FR 29491 (June 

2, 2021), 175 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2021). 

28 Id. P 33. 

29 Id. PP 48, 50. The Commission noted that the 

implementation of the NAESB Available Transfer 

Capability -related standards contained in WEQ– 

023 will be coordinated with the retirement of the 

NERC MOD A Reliability Standards. Id. P 43 n.53. 

30 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2). 

31See ISO-New England, 185 FERC ¶ 61,070 

(2023); N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 185 FERC 

¶ 61,067 (2023); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 185 

FERC ¶ 61,068 (2023); Ala. Power Co., 185 FERC 

¶ 61,073; Versant Power, 185 FERC ¶ 61,065 (2023); 

Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 185 FERC ¶ 61,072 

(2023); MATL LLP, 185 FERC ¶ 61,074 (2023); 

Golden Spread Elec. Coop., Inc., 185 FERC ¶ 61,071 

(2023). 

prior proceedings.’’ 13 In proposing to 

approve NERC’s request, the 

Commission stated that NERC 

‘‘provided an adequate basis to 

conclude that the requirements 

proposed for retirement: (1) provide 

little or no reliability benefit; (2) are 

administrative in nature or relate 

expressly to commercial or business 

practices; or (3) are redundant with 

other Reliability Standards.’’ 14 Further, 

the Commission acknowledged NERC’s 

assertion that retiring the MOD A 

Reliability Standards is justified 

because, being primarily administrative 

or related to commercial or business 

practices, they ‘‘no longer serve a 

reliability purpose.’’ 15 Specifically, the 

Commission noted NERC’s assertion 

that the MOD A Reliability Standards 

contain ‘‘commercially-focused 

elements facilitating interchange and 

balancing of interchange,’’ and system 

operators maintain reliability by 

monitoring Real-time flows based on 

System Operating Limits and 

Interconnection Reliability Operating 

Limits.16

D. NOPR Comments 

6. The Commission received five sets 

of comments—two of which were 

specific to the proposed retirement of 

the MOD A Reliability Standards.17

Neither of the two comments the 

Commission received in response to 

NERC’s proposed retirement of the MOD 

A Reliability Standards opposed NERC’s 

proposal. In its comments, Bonneville 

states that it appreciates the 

Commission’s recognition of the 

relationship between the MOD A 

retirements and the publication of 

Business Practice Standards by NAESB 

to replace the commercial aspects of the 

MOD requirements.18 Further, 

Bonneville believes ‘‘it will be 

important to continue the efforts to 

avoid commercial requirements in the 

NERC Reliability Standards and, 

likewise, avoid reliability requirements 

in NAESB Business Practice 

Standards.’’ 19 Similarly, WAPA 

expressed its support for the direction of 

the industry and the work performed by 

the Standards Efficiency Review project. 

More specifically, WAPA agreed with 

NERC’s assertion that Available Transfer 

Capability/Available Flowgate 

Capability, along with e-Tags, ‘‘are 

commercially-focused elements 

facilitating interchange and balancing of 

interchange.’’ 20 WAPA also asked the 

Commission to ensure that ‘‘appropriate 

measures are in place to ensure 

stakeholder[s] can provide input into 

the development of the new business 

practices.’’ 21

E. Order No. 873 and the Prior 

Retirements of Other Reliability 

Standard Requirements 

7. On September 17, 2020, the 

Commission issued Order No. 873,22

approving the retirement of 18 

Reliability Standard requirements,23

remanding two requirements for further 

consideration by NERC, and taking no 

action on the proposed retirement of the 

MOD A Reliability Standards.24 In 

Order No. 873, the Commission 

confirmed the approach proposed in the 

NOPR and provided developments since 

then, noting that on March 30, 2020, 

NAESB submitted Version 003.3 of the 

Standards for Business Practices and 

Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, including the Modeling 

business practices intended to replace 

the MOD A Reliability Standards upon 

their retirement, for which the 

Commission had issued a NOPR.25 The 

Commission concluded that ‘‘[i]n light 

of these developments, this final action 

does not address the retirement of MOD 

A Reliability Standards. The 

Commission will determine the 

appropriate action regarding the 

proposed retirement of the MOD A 

Reliability Standards at a later time.’’ 26

F. NAESB Standards for Business 

Practices and Communications 

Protocols for Public Utilities 

8. In Order No. 676–J, the 

Commission revised its regulations to 

incorporate by reference, as mandatory 

enforceable requirements, the current 

version of NAESB’s Standards for 

Business Practices and Communication 

Protocols for Public Utilities adopted by 

the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) 

of NAESB, Version 003.3 of the NAESB 

WEQ Business Practice Standards (WEQ 

Version 003.3 Standards).27 Among 

other things, the WEQ Version 003.3 

Standards address the technical issues 

affecting Available Transfer Capability 

and Available Flowgate Capability 

calculation for wholesale transmission 

services, with the addition of certain 

revisions and corrections. The 

Commission also revised its regulations 

to provide that transmission providers 

must avoid unduly discriminatory and 

preferential treatment in the calculation 

of Available Transfer Capability.28

9. The first compliance filing 

concerned the cybersecurity and 

Parallel Flow Visualization standards 

included in Version 003.3. The 

Commission directed utilities to make 

the second compliance filing reflecting 

the remainder of the revisions in 

Version 003.3 12 months after 

implementation of the WEQ Version 

003.2 Standards, or no earlier than 

October 27, 2022, with an 

implementation date no earlier than 

three months following compliance 

filings submission (no earlier than 

January 27, 2023), resulting in a 15- 

month implementation period.29

II. Commission Determination 

10. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of 

the FPA,30 the Commission approves 

the proposed retirement of the MOD A 

Reliability Standards, to be coordinated 

with the effective date of the tariff 

records accepted in the orders on the 

second set of Order No. 676–J 

compliance filings, February 1, 2024.31

As explained herein, we are satisfied 

with NERC’s justification for these 

retirements. In particular, we note 

NERC’s explanation that the MOD A 

Reliability Standards are no longer 

necessary because Available Transfer 

Capability, Available Flowgate 

Capability, and e-Tags fundamentally 

pertain to commercial and business 

operations, and that system operators 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74881 

32WAPA Comments at 5. 

33See Order No. 676–J, 175 FERC ¶ 61,139 

at P 5. 

34 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

35 5 CFR 1320. 

36The number of TSP (71), TOP (165), TP (98), 

RP (159), and BA (98) are taken based on the NERC 

Compliance Registry information as of August 17, 

2023, and represent U.S. registered entities. 

37The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) 

is a combination based on the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), as of 2022, for 75% of the average 

of an Electrical Engineer (17–2071) $77.29/hr, 77.29 

× .75 = 57.9675 ($57.97-rounded) ($57.97/hour) and 

25% of an Information and Record Clerk (43–4199) 

$39.58/hr × .25% = 9.895 ($9.90 rounded) ($9.90/ 

hour), for a total ($57.97 + $9.90 = $67.87/hour). 

38 In 2015 the Commission approved the 

retirement of the load-serving entity function. See 

N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,213 

(2015); N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 153 FERC 

¶ 61,024 (2015). NERC has an ongoing standard 

drafting team project to replace this function as an 

applicable entity in the Reliability Standards with 

the distribution provider function. See Project2022–02 Modifications to TPL–001 and MOD–032. 

39The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) 

is a combination based on the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), as of 2022, for 75% of the average 

of an Electrical Engineer (17–2071) $77.29/hr, 72.29 

× .75 = 57.9576 ($57.96-rounded) ($57.96/hour) and 

25% of an Information and Record Clerk (43–4199) 

$39.58/hr, $39.58 × .25% = 9.895 ($9.90 rounded) 

($9.90/hour), for a total ($57.96+$9.90 = $67.86/ 

hour). 

maintain reliability by monitoring Realtime flows based on System Operating 

Limits and Interconnection Reliability 

Operating Limits. We are further 

persuaded that retiring the MOD A 

Reliability Standards will not result in 

a reliability gap. 

11. Regarding WAPA’s comments 

focused on the importance of ensuring 

stakeholders’ ability to provide input.32

Order No. 676–J explained that NAESB 

has procedures to ensure that interested 

persons have input into NAESB’s 

standard development regardless of the 

interested persons’ NAESB membership 

and that ‘‘each standard NAESB adopts 

must be supported by a consensus of the 

relevant industry segments. Standards 

that fail to gain consensus support are 

not adopted.’’ 33 Therefore, we believe 

WAPA’s concerns were fully addressed. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

12. The information collection 

requirements contained in this final 

action are subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.34

OMB’s regulations require approval of 

certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency 

rules.35 Upon approval of a collection of 

information, OMB will assign an OMB 

control number and expiration date. 

Comments on the collection of 

information are due within 60 days of 

the date this order is published in the 

Federal Register. Respondents subject 

to the filing requirements of this 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. The Commission 

solicits comments on the Commission’s 

need for this information, whether the 

information will have practical utility, 

the accuracy of the burden estimates, 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be collected 

or retained, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondents’ burden, 

including the use of automated 

information techniques. 

13. These MOD Standards are 

currently located in the FERC–725A 

(OMB Control No. 1902–0244) 

collection. The collection is currently 

approved by OMB and contains 

Reliability Standards MOD–0001–1a, 

MOD–004–1, MOD–008–1, MOD–028– 

2, MOD–029–2a and MOD–030–3 (the 

MOD A Reliability Standards), along 

with other Reliability Standards. In 

Docket No. RM19–17–001, the 

Commission approves the retirement of 

these six current OMB-approved MOD 

Reliability Standards and their 

associated requirements. The 

retirements will be coordinated with the 

effective dates for the successor NAESB 

business practice standards, which 

mirror the retired responsibilities from 

the MOD–A Reliability Standards. 

14. Reliability Standards MOD–001– 

1a, MOD–004–1, MOD–008–1, MOD– 

028–2, MOD–029–2a, and MOD–030–3 

are all currently approved within the 

FERC–725A information collection. The 

number of respondents below is based 

on an estimate of the NERC compliance 

registry for transmission service 

providers (TSP), transmission operators 

(TOP), transmission planners (TP), 

resource planners (RP), and balancing 

authorities (BA).36 As these entities still 

have obligation to other NERC 

Reliability Standards when updating the 

FERC–725A for this collection the 

number respondents shall remain the 

same and only the man-hours will be 

reduced. 

MOD–001–1a—AVAILABLE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CAPABILITY—RETIREMENT

[Burden reduction] 

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

responses 

Average burden hours 

and cost per response 

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) 37 (3) * (4) = (5) 

FERC–725A, OMB Control No. 1902–0244 

TSP—Retired .......................................................... 71 1 71 120 hrs.; $8,144.40 .... 8,520 hrs.; $578,252.4. 

TOP—Retired ......................................................... 165 1 165 120 hrs.; $8,144.40 .... 19,800 hrs.; $1,343,826. 

FERC–725A for MOD–001–1a Total Retired .. ........................ ........................ .............................. ..................................... 28,320 hrs.; $1,922,078.40. 

MOD–004–1—CAPACITY BENEFIT MARGIN—RETIREMENT

[Burden reduction] 38

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

responses 

Average burden hours 

and cost per response 

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) 39 (3) * (4) = (5) 

RP—Retired ............................................................ 159 1 159 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 9,540 hrs.; $647,479.80. 

TSP—Retired .......................................................... 71 1 71 60 hrs.; $4,072.20. ..... 4,260 hrs.; $289,126.20. 

BA—Retired ............................................................ 98 1 98 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 5,880 hrs.; $399,075.60. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1

I I I 
74882 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

40 Id. 41 Id. 42 Id. 

MOD–004–1—CAPACITY BENEFIT MARGIN—RETIREMENT—Continued 

[Burden reduction] 38

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

responses 

Average burden hours 

and cost per response 

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) 39 (3) * (4) = (5) 

TP—Retired ............................................................ 203 1 203 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 12,180 hrs.; $826,656.60. 

FERC–725A for MOD–004–1 Total Retired .... ........................ ........................ .............................. ..................................... 31,860 hrs.; $2,162,338.20. 

MOD–008–1—TRANSMISSION RELIABILITY MARGIN CALCULATION METHODOLOGY—RETIREMENT

[Burden reduction] 

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

responses 

Average burden hours 

and cost per response 

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) 40 (3) * (4) = (5) 

FERC–725A, OMB Control No. 1902–0244 

TOP—Retired ......................................................... 165 1 165 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 9,900 hrs.; $671,913. 

FERC–725A for MOD–008–1 Total Retired .... ........................ ........................ .............................. ..................................... 9,900 hrs.; $671,913. 

MOD–028–2—AREA INTERCHANGE METHODOLOGY PROPOSED FOR RETIREMENT

[Burden reduction] 

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

responses 

Average burden hours 

and cost per response 

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) 41 (3) * (4) = (5) 

FERC–725A, OMB Control No. 1902–0244 

TOP—Retired ......................................................... 165 1 165 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 9,900 hrs.; $671,913. 

TSP—Retired .......................................................... 71 1 71 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 4,260 hrs.; $289,126.20. 

FERC–725A for MOD–028–2 Total Retired .... ........................ ........................ .............................. ..................................... 14,160 hrs.; $961,039.20. 

MOD–029–2a—FLOWGATE METHODOLOGY—RETIREMENT

[Burden reduction] 

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

response 

Average burden hours 

and cost per responses 

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) 42 (3) * (4) = (5) 

FERC–725A, OMB Control No. 1902–0244 

TOP—Retired ......................................................... 165 1 165 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 9,900 hrs.; $671,913. 

TSP—Retired .......................................................... 71 1 71 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 4,260 hrs.; $289,126.20. 

Total for MOD–029–2a for Retired .................. ........................ ........................ .............................. ..................................... 14,160 hrs.; $961,039.20. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74883 

43 Id. 

44Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Env’t Policy 

Act, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 

1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 

FERC ¶ 61,284). 

45 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

46 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

47 13 CFR 121.101. 

MOD–030–2—FLOWGATE METHODOLOGY—RETIREMENT

[Burden reduction] 

Applicable entity 

(respondent) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Annual number of 

responses 

Average burden 

hours and cost 

per response 43

Total annual burden hours 

and cost reduction 

(rounded) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

FERC–725A, OMB Control No. 1902–0244 

TOP—Retired ......................................................... 165 1 165 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 9,900 hrs.; $671,913. 

TSP—Retired .......................................................... 71 1 71 60 hrs.; $4,072.20 ...... 4,260 hrs.; $289,126.20. 

Total for MOD–030–2 for Retired .................... ........................ ........................ .............................. ..................................... 14,160 hrs.; $961,039.20. 

Title: FERC–725A, Mandatory 

Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power 

System. 

Action: Modifications to Existing 

Collections of Information in FERC– 

725A. 

OMB Control No: 1902–0244 (FERC– 

725A). 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit, and not for profit institutions. 

Frequency of Responses: On occasion 

(and proposed for deletion). 

Necessity of the Information: 

Reliability Standards MOD–001–1a 

(Available Transmission System 

Capability), MOD–004–1 (Capacity 

Benefit Margin), MOD–008–1 

(Transmission Reliability Margin 

Calculation Methodology), MOD–028–2 

(Area Interchange Methodology), MOD– 

029–2a (Rated System Path 

Methodology), and MOD030–3 

(Flowgate Methodology) (the MOD A 

Reliability Standards) were part of the 

implementation of the Congressional 

mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to develop mandatory and 

enforceable Reliability Standards to 

better ensure the reliability of the 

nation’s Bulk-Power system. As these 

Reliability Standards are retired, their 

purpose and requirements have been 

moved into the NAESB business 

practice standards. 

Internal review: The Commission has 

reviewed NERC’s proposal and 

determined that this action is necessary 

to implement section 215 of the FPA. 

15. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Office 

of the Executive Director, 888 First 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 

[Attention: Ellen Brown, email: 

DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 

502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 

16. Comments concerning the 

information collections and 

requirements approved for retirement in 

this final action and the associated 

burden estimates, should be sent to the 

Commission in this docket and may also 

be sent to the Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission]. For security 

reasons, comments should be sent by 

email to OMB at the following email 

address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

IV. Environmental Analysis 

17. The Commission is required to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or an Environmental Impact Statement 

for any action that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the human 

environment.44 The Commission has 

categorically excluded certain actions 

from this requirement as not having a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Included in the exclusion 

are rules that are clarifying, corrective, 

or procedural or that do not 

substantially change the effect of the 

regulations being amended.45 The 

actions approved here fall within this 

categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

18. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 46 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

19. The RFA mandates consideration 

of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a 

rule and that minimize any significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Small 

Business Administration’s Office of Size 

Standards develops the numerical 

definition of a small business.47 The 

Small Business Administration has 

established size standards, for the types 

of affected entities that range from a 

maximum of 250–1,000 employees for 

an entity and its affiliates to be 

considered small. 

20. This final action accepts the 

request of NERC, the Commissioncertified ERO, to retire the MOD A 

Reliability Standards and recognizes 

that NAESB business practice standards 

will cover the obligations. This final 

action reduces paperwork burdens for 

both large and small business entities. 

The Commission estimates the total 

industry reduction in burden for all 

entities (large and small) to be 112,560 

hours or 68.5 hours per response. 

21. Based on the information above, 

the Commission certifies that the 

proposed reductions will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

no initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

is required. The Commission certifies 

that this final action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

VI. Document Availability 

22. 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). 

23. From FERC’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. 

24. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s website during 

normal business hours from FERC 

Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at 

ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 

8371, TTY (202)502–8659. Email the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1

I I I 
74884 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Authenticity’’ is a presentment guaranty, as 

described by 31 CFR 240.4. 

2 ‘‘Validity’’ and ‘‘valid check’’ are defined in the 

final rule. See section III.B., below. 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

25. These regulations are effective 

February 1, 2024. 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. 

By the Commission. 

Issued October 26, 2023. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24095 Filed 10–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service 

31 CFR Part 240 

RIN 1530–AA22 

Indorsement and Payment of Checks 

Drawn on the United States Treasury 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Fiscal Service, 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Fiscal 

Service (Fiscal Service) of the 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is 

amending its regulations that govern the 

payment of checks drawn on the United 

States Treasury (Treasury checks). The 

amendments coincide with the 

development of Fiscal Service’s 

enhanced check post payment 

processing system, which will provide 

Treasury check return information to 

financial institutions more quickly than 

today. Financial institutions will receive 

this information through their existing 

communication channels with the 

Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs), generally 

prior to the expiration of the time 

periods in which financial institutions 

must make Treasury check deposits 

available for withdrawal as prescribed 

by Regulation CC, Availability of Funds 

and Collection of Checks. Accordingly, 

Fiscal Service is amending its 

regulations so that, with certain 

exceptions, a financial institution will 

be liable if it pays a canceled Treasury 

check, also known as a payment over 

cancellation (POC), without waiting to 

receive the return information that 

would enable the financial institution to 

know the check has been canceled. 

DATES: Effective December 1, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Swasey, Director, Post Payment Division 

at (215) 816–8230 or gary.swasey@

fiscal.treasury.gov; or Thomas Kearns, 

Senior Counsel, at (202) 874–6680 or 

thomas.kearns@fiscal.treasury.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Currently, when either Fiscal Service 

or a payment certifying agency puts a 

‘‘stop payment’’ (also known as a 

‘‘check stop’’) on a Treasury check to 

cancel it, there is a possibility that the 

canceled check may still be paid. Fiscal 

Service or an agency may put a ‘‘stop 

payment’’ on a check payment because 

the payee submitted a check claim (i.e., 

claimed that the check was either lost or 

stolen), because the certifying agency 

realized the payment was incorrect, or 

because it was otherwise improper. 

When a canceled or ‘‘stopped’’ check is 

subsequently paid, this leads to what is 

known as a payment over cancellation 

(POC). POCs are improper payments, 

which can amount to $100 million or 

more each year. 

Fiscal Service is developing 

enhancements to its post payment 

processing system that will result in 

Treasury check return information being 

made available to financial institutions 

sooner than is the case today. With 

Fiscal Service’s current post payment 

processing system, several days often 

pass before Fiscal Service can provide 

information on Treasury check returns 

that the Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs) 

transmit to financial institutions 

through existing communication 

channels. The system enhancements 

will enable Fiscal Service to provide 

check return information to financial 

institutions through these existing 

channels within the time periods 

prescribed by Regulation CC, 

Availability of Funds and Collection of 

Checks (12 CFR part 229), for when a 

financial institution must make funds 

deposited by Treasury check available 

for withdrawal. 

Under the current regulations at 31 

CFR part 240, a financial institution 

generally is not liable for a POC if the 

institution has taken ‘‘reasonable 

efforts’’ to ensure the check is 

authentic.1 The final rule amends the 

definition of ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ found 

at 31 CFR 240.2 to include a 

requirement that financial institutions 

wait for check return information within 

the time periods set out by Regulation 

CC to help verify that a Treasury check 

is valid 2 and authentic. It is also making 

conforming changes to 31 CFR part 240 

to require that financial institutions 

ensure a Treasury check has not been 

canceled before making the funds 

associated with that check available for 

withdrawal. 

In those instances where a financial 

institution has taken reasonable efforts 

but check return information for a POC 

on a properly presented check is not 

transmitted to the financial institution 

prior the funds availability timeframe 

specified in Regulation CC, the financial 

institution would not be liable for 

releasing the funds associated with the 

Treasury check. While Fiscal Service 

expects this circumstance to be 

uncommon, it understands that 

compliance with Regulation CC requires 

the release of the funds within certain 

timeframes, and thus under the final 

rule a financial institution will not be 

liable for a POC due to complying with 

Regulation CC. (Note, however, that this 

does not affect the presentment 

guarantees found in 31 CFR 240.4. As is 

currently the case, if Fiscal Service 

declines a check due to improper 

presentment and reverses the 

provisional credit, the presenting 

financial institution may still be liable 

for payment on the check regardless of 

Regulation CC’s requirements.) 

After enhancements to Treasury’s post 

payment processing system have been 

implemented and the final rule’s 

requirements become effective (no 

sooner than 30 days after publication of 

the final rule), the system and rule 

changes should greatly reduce payment 

issues involving Treasury checks and 

more closely align the treatment of 

canceled Treasury checks with industry 

practices for other canceled checks in 

the banking system. The changes will 

eliminate many POCs, because they will 

allow a certifying agency to place a 

‘‘true stop’’ on a Treasury check. The 

system changes will also help reduce 

instances where a Treasury check (or an 

item purporting to be a Treasury check) 

may be charged back to the financial 

institution, because they will allow the 

financial institution to verify that the 

check is not counterfeit, that the amount 

has not been altered, that the check is 

not stale-dated, and that the check has 

not been previously negotiated. For 

these non-POC circumstances, financial 

institutions are already liable for 

accepting such instruments. While the 

final rule does not impact a financial 

institution’s liability in these other 

circumstances, Fiscal Service’s 

enhanced post payment processing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1