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. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

4195 

Vol. 80, No. 17 

Tuesday, January 27, 2015 

1 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012). 

2 Interpretation of Protection System Reliability 

Standard, Order No. 758, 138 FERC ¶ 61,094, 

clarification denied, 139 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2012). 

3Supervisory devices, as applied to autoreclosing 

relays, essentially ‘‘supervise’’ the actions of an 

autoreclosing scheme, i.e., allow autoreclosing for 

desirable conditions or block autoreclosing for 

undesirable conditions. 

4 16 U.S.C. 824o(c) and (d). 

5See id. at 824o(e). 

6North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 

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

FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 

FERC ¶ 61,030, order on compliance, 118 FERC 

¶ 61,190, order on reh’g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2007), 

rev. denied sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 

1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

7 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242 at PP 1474, 1492, 1497, and 1514, order 

on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 

(2007). 

8See Order No. 758, 138 FERC ¶ 61,094 at PP 7, 

23–24. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM14–8–000; Order No. 803] 

Protection System Maintenance 

Reliability Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Power 

Act, the Commission approves a revised 

Reliability Standard, PRC–005–3 

(Protection System and Automatic 

Reclosing Maintenance), submitted by 

the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC). In addition, the 

Commission approves one new 

definition and six revised definitions 

referenced in the Reliability Standard, 

the assigned violation risk factors and 

violation severity levels, and NERC’s 

implementation plan. Consistent with 

Order No. 758, the Reliability Standard 

requires applicable entities to test and 

maintain certain autoreclosing relays as 

part of a protection system maintenance 

program. However, to ensure that proper 

maintenance and testing is done for all 

parts of a reclosing relay scheme that 

can affect the reliable operation of the 

Bulk-Power System, the Commission 

directs that NERC develop a 

modification to the Reliability Standard 

to include maintenance and testing of 

supervisory relays. 

DATES: This rule will become effective 

March 30, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tom Bradish (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (301) 665–1391, Tom.Bradish@

ferc.gov. 

Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6362, 

julie.greenisen@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the 

Commission approves a revised 

Reliability Standard, PRC–005–3 

(Protection System and Automatic 

Reclosing Maintenance), submitted by 

the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC). In addition, the 

Commission approves one new 

definition and six revised definitions 

referenced in the Reliability Standard, 

the assigned violation risk factors and 

violation severity levels, and NERC’s 

implementation plan. Consistent with 

Order No. 758,2 the revised Reliability 

Standard requires applicable entities to 

test and maintain certain autoreclosing 

relays as part of a protection system 

maintenance program. However, to 

ensure that proper maintenance and 

testing is done for all parts of a reclosing 

relay scheme that can affect the reliable 

operation of the Bulk-Power System, the 

Commission directs that NERC develop 

a modification to the Reliability 

Standard to include maintenance and 

testing of supervisory relays, as 

discussed below.3

I. Background 

A. Regulatory Background 

2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a 

Commission-certified Electric 

Reliability Organization (ERO) to 

develop mandatory and enforceable 

Reliability Standards, subject to 

Commission review and approval.4

Once approved, the Reliability 

Standards may be enforced by the ERO 

subject to Commission oversight, or by 

the Commission independently.5 In 

2006, the Commission certified NERC as 

the ERO.6

3. In 2007, in Order No. 693, the 

Commission approved an initial set of 

Reliability Standards submitted by 

NERC, including initial versions of four 

protection system and load-sheddingrelated maintenance standards: PRC– 

005–1, PRC–008–0, PRC–011–0, and 

PRC–017–0.7 In addition, the 

Commission directed that NERC 

develop a revision to PRC–005–1 to 

incorporate a maximum time interval 

during which to conduct maintenance 

and testing of protection systems, and to 

consider combining into one standard 

the various maintenance and testing 

requirements for all of the maintenance 

and testing-related Reliability Standards 

for protection systems, underfrequency 

load shedding (UFLS) equipment and 

undervoltage load shedding (UVLS) 

equipment. 

4. The Commission issued Order No. 

758 in February 2012, in response to 

NERC’s request for approval of its 

interpretation of Requirement R1 of the 

then-current version of the protection 

system maintenance standard, PRC– 

005–1. The Commission accepted 

NERC’s proposed interpretation of PRC– 

005–1, which identified the types of 

protection system equipment to which 

the Reliability Standard applied. In 

addition, the Commission directed 

NERC to develop modifications to the 

standard to address gaps highlighted by 

the proposed interpretation, including 

the need to address reclosing relays that 

may affect the reliability of the BulkPower System.8

5. Prior to issuance of Order No. 758, 

NERC had begun developing revisions 

to its initial maintenance standards for 

protection systems and underfrequency 

and undervoltage load shedding 

equipment in response to the Order No. 

693 directives. Those revisions, 

reflected in a consolidated Reliability 

Standard, PRC–005–2, were approved 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
4196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9Protection System Maintenance Reliability 

Standard, Order No. 793, 145 FERC ¶ 61,253 (2013). 

10NERC Petition at 8. 

11 Id. at 9 (citations to Joint Committee Report 

omitted). 

12 Id. 

13 Id. at 10. 

14 Id. NERC staff conducted its own analysis of 

this definition of ‘‘proximity,’’ ‘‘to verify that the 

10-mile threshold provides adequate margin to 

ensure maintenance and testing of all reclosing 

relays where failure could result in generating 

station instability.’’ Id. at 20. See Protection System 

Maintenance Reliability Standard, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 43987 at 43989 (July 

29, 2013), 148 FERC ¶ 61,041, at PP 11–14 (2014) 

for additional background on the Joint Committee 

Report and NERC staff analysis. 

15NERC Petition, Ex. A at 1–2. 

16See id. at 22–24. 17On June 4, 2014, NERC submitted two 

additional filings: (1) Proposed revisions to a 

violation severity level assigned to Requirement R1 

of PRC–005, consistent with a Commission 

directive in Order No. 793; and (2) an errata to 

NERC’s petition to reflect proper capitalization of 

defined terms as used in the proposed standard. 

18Protection System Maintenance Reliability 

Standard, 148 FERC ¶ 61,041 (2014). 

19 Id. P 22. 

by the Commission on December 24, 

2013 in Order No. 793.9

B. NERC Petition and Proposed 

Standard PRC–005–3 

6. On February 14, 2014, NERC 

submitted a petition seeking approval of 

proposed Reliability Standard PRC– 

005–3. In its petition, NERC maintained 

that the standard promotes reliability by 

making certain reclosing relays subject 

to a mandatory maintenance program, 

including adding detailed tables of 

minimum maintenance activities and 

maximum maintenance intervals for the 

reclosing relays. NERC explained that 

the purpose of PRC–005–3 is to 

‘‘document and implement programs for 

the maintenance of all Protection 

Systems and Automatic Reclosing 

affecting the reliability of the Bulk 

Electric System so that they are kept in 

working order.’’ 10

7. NERC explained that the subset of 

reclosing applications included in 

proposed PRC–005–3 is based on the 

findings of a technical study performed, 

in response to Order No. 758, by NERC’s 

System Analysis and Modeling 

Subcommittee (SAMS) and System 

Protection and Control Subcommittee 

(SPCS). The resulting study (the Joint 

Committee Report), attached to NERC’s 

petition as Exhibit D, examined both the 

scope of reclosing relays that could 

affect the reliable operation of the BulkPower System and appropriate 

maintenance intervals and activities for 

those relays. 

8. In its petition, NERC explained that 

reclosing relays are ‘‘utilized on 

transmission systems to restore 

elements to service following automatic 

circuit breaker tripping,’’ and are 

‘‘typically installed to lessen the burden 

on Transmission operators of manually 

restoring transmission lines.’’ 11 NERC 

explained that ‘‘while more efficient 

restoration of transmission lines 

following temporary faults does provide 

an inherent reliability benefit, certain 

applications of reclosing relays can 

result in undesired relay operation or 

operation not consistent with relay 

design, leading to adverse reliability 

impacts.’’ 12 After examining these 

potential reliability impacts, the Joint 

Committee Report recommended that 

the revised standard should: 

(1) Explicitly address maintenance and 

testing of reclosing relays applied as an 

integral part of a Special Protection System; 

and (2) include maintenance and testing of 

reclosing relays at or in proximity to 

generating plants at which the total installed 

capacity is greater than the capacity of the 

largest generating unit within the Balancing 

Authority Area.13

In addition, NERC explained that the 

Joint Committee Report recommended 

that ‘‘proximity’’ to these large 

generators be defined as ‘‘substations 

one bus away if the substation is within 

10 miles of the plant.’’ 14

9. The Joint Committee Report 

recommendations are reflected in the 

applicability section of PRC–005–3, 

which identifies, inter alia, the 

following facilities: 

4.2.6.1 Automatic Reclosing applied on 

terminals of Elements connected to the BES 

bus located at generating plant substations 

where the total installed gross generating 

plant capacity is greater than the gross 

capacity of the largest BES generating unit 

within the Balancing Authority Area. 

4.2.6.2 Automatic Reclosing applied on 

the terminals of all BES Elements at 

substations one bus away from generating 

plants specified in Section 4.2.6.1 when the 

substation is less than 10 circuit-miles from 

the generating plant substation. 

4.2.6.3 Automatic Reclosing applied as an 

integral part of an SPS specified in Section 

4.2.4.15

10. Further, NERC proposed 

modifications to the language of 

Requirements R1, R3, and R4 of PRC– 

005–2 to reflect the inclusion of 

automatic reclosing relays. NERC also 

proposed to include a new definition as 

part of the revised standard, as follows: 

Automatic Reclosing—Includes the 

following Components: 

• Reclosing relay 

• Control circuitry associated with 

the reclosing relay. 

NERC stated that the definition is 

intended for use within PRC–005–3 

only, and would not be incorporated 

into the NERC Glossary of Terms. In 

addition, NERC proposed modifications 

to four defined terms referenced in 

PRC–005–2, Protection System 

Maintenance Plan, Component Type, 

Component, and Countable Event, to 

reflect the inclusion of automatic 

reclosing components. Finally, NERC 

proposed to revise the definitions of 

Unresolved Maintenance Issue and 

Segment, also currently referenced in 

PRC–005–2, to capitalize the reference 

to the defined term ‘‘Component.’’ 

11. NERC’s implementation plan for 

PRC–005–3 incorporates the phased-in 

implementation period approved for 

PRC–005–2, with the addition of 

compliance dates for the new 

requirements for automatic reclosing 

components. NERC explained that 

retirement of the legacy Reliability 

Standards (PRC–005–1b, PRC–008–0, 

PRC–011–0, and PRC–017–0) will 

continue to ‘‘key off’’ the regulatory 

approval date for PRC–005–2, although 

PRC–005–2 itself will be retired in the 

United States immediately prior to the 

effective date of PRC–005–3, on the first 

day of the first calendar quarter twelve 

months following regulatory approval.16

According to NERC, applicable entities 

will continue to calculate compliance 

dates for Protection System Components 

by counting forward from the 

Commission approval date of PRC–005– 

2, and for Automatic Reclosing 

Components by counting forward from 

the effective date of Commission 

approval of PRC–005–3. Finally, for 

newly-identified Automatic Reclosing 

Components (e.g., resulting from the 

addition or retirement of generating 

units), compliance would be required by 

the end of the third calendar year 

following identification of those 

Components. 

12. NERC stated that the violation risk 

factors proposed in PRC–005–3 track 

those in the currently approved 

standard PRC–005–2, and that the 

violation severity levels now include 

the additional component (Automatic 

Reclosing) in a manner consistent with 

the approach taken for PRC–005–2.17

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

13. On July 17, 2014, the Commission 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability 

Standard PRC–005–3.18 While the 

NOPR acknowledged that NERC had 

provided technical support for the 

proposed thresholds for identifying 

applicable reclosing relays, the 

Commission noted that it ‘‘nonetheless 

[had] concerns whether the thresholds 

are too narrow.’’ 19 Based on those 

concerns, the Commission proposed to 

require NERC to submit a report 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4197 

20 Id. P 23. 

21 Id. 

22See id. PP 24–27. 

23EEI Comments at 2. See also ITC Comments at 

4; G&T Cooperatives Comments at 2 (supporting 

approval of the Reliability Standard). 

24NERC Comments at 12. 

25 Id. at 14. 

26EEI Comments at 3. 

27 Id. at 4. 

28 Id. 

examining the effectiveness of the 

revised standard in identifying reclosing 

relay schemes that could affect the 

reliable operation of the Bulk-Power 

System based on ‘‘(1) actual operations 

data, and (2) simulated system 

conditions from planning 

assessments.’’ 20

14. With regard to actual operations 

data, the NOPR proposed that NERC 

enhance the granularity of its existing 

misoperations database ‘‘to gather 

relevant information regarding events 

that involve autoreclosing relays, such 

as distance from the fault, whether the 

relay reclosed into the fault, and 

whether that reclosure caused or 

exacerbated an event.’’ 21 With regard to 

simulated system conditions, the NOPR 

suggested that the contingency analyses 

generated as part of planning 

assessments required under Reliability 

Standard TPL–001–4 could provide an 

appropriate benchmark for assessing 

PRC–005–3’s applicability thresholds 

for reclosing relays.22

15. The NOPR also proposed to direct 

modification of PRC–005–3 to include 

supervisory devices associated with 

applicable reclosing relay schemes. The 

Commission raised concerns that the 

failure of supervisory devices could 

raise reliability concerns under certain 

conditions, such as when static system 

angles are greater than designed and 

allow autoreclosing into a fault. Finally, 

the NOPR requested that commenters 

address the data retention obligations as 

proposed in PRC–005–3, which require 

applicable entities to retain 

maintenance records for a minimum of 

two maintenance cycles (up to 24 years). 

16. Comments on the NOPR were 

filed by NERC; the Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI); International 

Transmission Company (ITC); 

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 

and Tri-State Generation and 

Transmission Association, Inc. (together 

G&T Cooperatives); and Idaho Power 

Company (Idaho Power). 

II. Discussion 

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

the FPA, we adopt our NOPR proposal 

and approve Reliability Standard PRC– 

005–3, including the associated 

definitions, violation risk factors and 

violation severity levels, and 

implementation plan (including the 

proposed retirement of identified 

‘‘legacy’’ standards), as just, reasonable, 

not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential and in the public interest. 

As discussed above, NERC, EEI, ITC, 

and G&T Cooperatives support 

approval, commenting that the 

modifications to PRC–005–3 ‘‘address a 

known reliability gap’’ and address the 

directive in Order No. 758.23 We agree 

with NERC and the commenters, and 

conclude that Reliability Standard PRC– 

005–3 will enhance reliability by 

reducing the risk of autoreclosing relay 

misoperations through the imposition of 

minimum maintenance activities and 

maximum maintenance intervals for 

these relays. We further determine that 

PRC–005–3 adequately addresses the 

Commission directive from Order No. 

758 with respect to the inclusion of 

reclosing relays in an adequate 

protection system maintenance 

program. In addition, as discussed 

below, we direct NERC to develop one 

modification to PRC–005–3 pertaining 

to the inclusion of supervisory relays for 

applicable reclosing relay schemes, and 

we clarify that NERC’s proposal set forth 

in its NOPR comments is an appropriate 

approach to satisfy this directive. 

18. Below, we discuss the following 

matters: (A) Proposed reporting on the 

effectiveness of PRC–005–3; (B) 

supervisory devices; and (C) requested 

clarification on the applicability 

provisions of PRC–005–3. 

A. Proposed Reporting on Effectiveness 

of PRC–005–3 

NOPR 

19. As noted above, the Commission 

proposed in the NOPR to direct NERC 

to submit a report, two years after the 

effective date of PRC–005–3, addressing 

the effectiveness of PRC–005–3 in 

identifying reclosing relay schemes that 

could impact the reliable operation of 

the Bulk-Power System. The 

Commission suggested that NERC 

submit such a report to address the 

Commission’s on-going concerns 

whether the standard’s applicability 

thresholds reasonably identify those 

types of reclosing relays that can affect 

the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. 

The NOPR proposed two means of 

evaluating the standard’s scope, based 

on (1) actual operations data and (2) 

simulated system conditions, such as 

contingency analyses required as part of 

the requirements of Reliability Standard 

TPL–001–4. The NOPR sought comment 

on the value of these means to evaluate 

PRC–005–3. 

Comments 

20. NERC objects to additional 

reporting of any kind, contending that it 

adequately supported the applicability 

thresholds in PRC–005–3 through the 

analysis provided in the Joint 

Committee Report. NERC argues that the 

Commission did not adequately justify 

the need for additional reporting or 

analysis, and did not provide a 

sufficiently detailed description of its 

concerns to allow the industry to 

‘‘meaningfully comment’’ on the 

Commission’s reporting proposals.24

NERC also objects to the specific 

reporting benchmarks proposed in the 

NOPR, arguing that the planning 

assessment information generated by 

TPL–001–4 would not provide a 

meaningful benchmark for analyzing the 

scope of PRC–005–3. According to 

NERC, the simulations of autoreclosing 

in these planning assessments would 

not provide information relevant to the 

Commission’s concerns with PRC–005– 

3 because they only assess the impact of 

(1) a successful autoreclosing, which is 

the ‘‘desired outcome,’’ and (2) an 

unsuccessful autoreclosing into a fault, 

which NERC claims ‘‘will not provide 

information regarding the potential 

impact of an autoreclosing failure that 

may result in premature reclosing into 

a fault.’’ 25

21. EEI supports the Commission’s 

proposed directive to require NERC to 

evaluate the effectiveness of PRC–005– 

3 through the submission of a report. 

However, EEI maintains that the 

Commission should ‘‘allow NERC, with 

industry input and support, the latitude 

to develop’’ the methods and processes 

for such an evaluation.26 EEI contends 

that this approach would appropriately 

give due weight to the technical 

expertise of NERC, in recognition of the 

requirements of FPA section 215. 

22. EEI also asks the Commission to 

refrain from requiring changes to 

NERC’s existing Misoperations 

Database, stating that such a directive 

could ‘‘inadvertently change the 

purpose and intent of this system.’’ 27

According to EEI, the Misoperations 

Database ‘‘is currently used to track 

misoperations, categorize the 

misoperation type and assign cause,’’ 

and ‘‘was not intended to assess 

impact.’’ 28 Moreover, EEI does not 

support the use of the contingency 

analyses required by TPL–001–4 to 

assess the scope of reclosing relays 

encompassed by PRC–005–3, because 

the two standards were developed for 

different purposes and should not 

necessarily be expected to align. Finally, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
4198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

29 Id. at 5. 

30Order on the Electric Reliability Organization’s 

Five-Year Performance Assessment, 149 FERC 

¶ 61,141 at P 38 (2014). 31NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,041 at P 28. 32 Id. P 29 (citing Transmission Relay Loadability 

Reliability Standard, Order No. 733, 130 FERC 

¶ 61,221 (2010)). 

33 Id. P 30. 

34NERC Comments at 4. 

35 Id. 

36 Id. at 5. 

37 Idaho Power Comments at 3–4. 

38EEI Comments at 5. 

39 G&T Cooperatives Comments at 4. 

EEI notes that considerable study has 

already been conducted to address the 

Commission’s identified concerns on 

the potential impact of reclosing relay 

misoperations, and asks that the 

Commission ‘‘allow those 

recommendations to be applied, vetted, 

and studied before setting a new set of 

criteria which may not be necessary to 

ensure BES reliability.’’ 29

23. Idaho Power agrees with NERC 

and EEI that the misoperations database 

enhanced reporting requirement as 

proposed in the NOPR is of little value, 

and notes that the only autoreclosing 

relays that should be subject to 

additional scrutiny are those relatively 

few reclosing relays needed to ensure 

reliability. 

24. By contrast, ITC does not 

generally oppose the proposed directive 

on gathering additional misoperations 

data related to reclosing relays, but asks 

for clarification about certain 

information NERC would be required to 

collect. Specifically, ITC asks that the 

Commission recognize that an entity 

may not be able to report the distance 

from the fault without some allowable 

margin of specificity. 

Commission Determination 

25. Based on the comments received 

on this issue, we are persuaded not to 

require NERC to submit a report on the 

effectiveness of PRC–005–3 in 

identifying reclosing relay schemes that 

can have an impact on the reliable 

operation of the Bulk-Power System, as 

we had proposed in the NOPR. Instead, 

we direct NERC to obtain, maintain, and 

make available to the Commission upon 

request, one year following the effective 

date of the standard and on an annual 

basis thereafter, data sufficient to 

analyze the effectiveness of PRC–005–3, 

whether it be through NERC’s Event 

Analysis process or other means. 

Specifically, NERC is to collect relevant 

information regarding Bulk-Power 

System events that involve high speed 

autoreclosing relays. Such information 

would include the operations of 

autoreclosing relays and their 

supervisory functionalities (e.g., time 

delays, synchronism check, voltages, 

etc.) that caused or exacerbated the 

events, and any unintended 

consequences of the events. The 

Commission encourages NERC and 

FERC staff to collaborate on the specific 

data to be collected, which could 

include, but is not limited to, the 

approximate distance from the fault and 

the generation loss associated with the 

event. Further, the Commission is also 

interested in knowing if those 

autoreclosing relays identified as 

causing or exacerbating an event 

operated as designed, and if PRC–005– 

3 is applicable to the autoreclosing 

relays that were involved. We expect 

NERC to share all appropriate data as 

needed to evaluate autoreclosing relay 

performance, in accordance with our 

general expectation that NERC will 

‘‘cooperate with and share all 

appropriate data and information with 

Commission staff’’ as needed ‘‘to ensure 

that the ERO Enterprise and the 

Commission are both able to effectively 

perform their duties under section 215 

of the FPA.’’ 30

26. Given our decision in this Final 

Rule, we need not address the various 

arguments regarding the use of 

simulated contingency analyses as a 

benchmark for determining whether 

PRC–005–3 encompasses an adequate 

set of reclosing relays, and need not 

address ITC’s request for clarification 

about the data points potentially 

required under our proposed revisions 

to NERC’s misoperations database. 

B. Supervisory Devices 

NOPR 

27. The NOPR proposed to require 

modification of PRC–005–3 to include 

maintenance and testing of supervisory 

devices associated with autoreclosing 

relay schemes otherwise covered by the 

standard, such as sync-check and 

voltage relays that may be critical to the 

operation of an autoreclosing scheme.31

In doing so, the Commission noted that 

requiring the inclusion of supervisory 

devices within the scope of PRC–005–3 

is consistent with Commission orders 

on NERC’s Transmission Relay 

Loadability Reliability Standard.32 In 

addition, the Commission noted that 

NERC had failed to explain how a 

failure of a sync-check relay for 

undesirable conditions, such as when 

static system angles are greater than 

designed, would not allow 

autoreclosing, thus leading to the 

reliability concerns identified in Order 

No. 758.33

Comments 

28. NERC states that it would support 

modification of PRC–005–3 to include 

certain supervisory devices to address 

the Commission’s concerns as stated in 

the NOPR. Specifically, NERC suggests 

modifying the Reliability Standard to 

include ‘‘maintenance of supervision 

functions for which a failure can result 

in autoreclosing into a fault and 

potentially cause generating or plant 

instability.’’ 34 Accordingly, NERC states 

that it ‘‘would support the addition of 

voltage supervision, and where used, 

supervisory inputs associated with 

selective autoreclosing in the coverage 

of PRC–005.’’ 35 While asserting that 

‘‘synchronism check failures do not 

have the potential to affect reliable 

operation of the Bulk-Power System,’’ 

NERC also acknowledges that 

‘‘including synchronism check 

supervision, as suggested by the 

Commission, would provide a reliability 

benefit.’’ 36 Thus, NERC states that it 

supports the addition of synchronism 

check supervision to the Reliability 

Standard’s coverage. 

29. Idaho Power generally supports 

the inclusion of supervisory devices as 

part of PRC–005–3, based on its position 

that ‘‘any component required for the 

successful operation of the reclosing 

system at the identified critical location 

should be tested and maintained.’’ 37

30. Other commenters support 

modification of PRC–005–3 to include 

supervisory devices with certain 

limitations. EEI asks that the 

Commission limit the directive ‘‘to only 

those supervisory relays, which are 

directly associated with automatic 

reclosing schemes that would be 

covered by the proposed Reliability 

Standard.’’ 38 G&T Cooperatives ask that 

the Commission limit any directive on 

supervisory devices to ‘‘those 

supervisory sync-check relays that can 

reclose on another transmission line,’’ 

arguing that these are the only 

supervisory devices where failure could 

lead to a reliability concern.39

Commission Determination 

31. For the reasons stated in the 

NOPR and based on the commenters’ 

general support, we adopt our NOPR 

proposal and direct that, pursuant to 

section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, NERC 

develop modifications to PRC–005–3 to 

include supervisory devices associated 

with autoreclosing relay schemes to 

which the Reliability Standard applies. 

Further, we clarify that NERC’s proposal 

regarding the scope of supervisory 

devices is an acceptable approach to 

satisfy the Commission directive. 

Specifically, NERC proposed in its 

NOPR comments, and we find 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4199 

40 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006). 

41 5 CFR 1320.11. 42EEI Comments at 6. 

43See December 18, 2014, NERC Petition for 

Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard PRC– 

005–4, Docket No. RM15–9–000. Nothing in this 

Final Rule prejudges the outcome in the separate 

proceeding addressing the Version 4 standard. 

44See http://search.usa.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9

C%93&affiliate=eia.doe.gov&query=generation+

capacity+all+states&search=Submit and http://

www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_07_

a.html. 

acceptable, that the scope of the 

supervisory devices to be encompassed 

in the Reliability Standard are those 

providing voltage supervision, 

supervisory inputs associated with 

selective autoreclosing, and sync-check 

relays that are part of a reclosing scheme 

covered by PRC–005–3. 

C. Requested Clarification on 

Applicability Sections 

Comments 

32. ITC requests that the Commission 

clarify, or direct NERC to clarify, two 

applicability provisions. First, ITC asks 

for clarification that ‘‘the largest BES 

generating unit within the Balancing 

Authority Area’’ under Applicability 

section 4.2.6.1 would be determined 

using the NERC-defined term 

‘‘Balancing Authority,’’ and not the 

MISO-defined term ‘‘Local Balancing 

Authority.’’ In addition, ITC requests 

that the Commission provide guidance 

on how to measure the gross capacity of 

multi-unit generating plants that are 

connected to electrically-isolated buses 

under section 4.2.6.2. 

Commission Determination 

33. We decline to provide the 

requested clarifications. Rather, we 

expect that an applicable entity will 

consult with the relevant Balancing 

Authority and/or Regional Entity, as 

appropriate, with questions concerning 

identification of the largest generating 

unit within the Balancing Authority 

Area, or the determination of gross 

generating plant capacity under the 

applicability sections of Reliability 

Standard PRC–005–3. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

34. The following collection of 

information contained in this rule is 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995.40 OMB’s 

regulations require approval of certain 

information collection requirements 

imposed by agency rules.41 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. 

35. The Commission solicited 

comments on the need for and purpose 

of the information contained in 

Reliability Standard PRC–005–3 and the 

corresponding burden to implement the 

standard. The Commission received one 

comment on the reporting and 

information collection estimates. 

Specifically, EEI recommends that the 

Commission revise the cost estimate 

associated with the increase in 

information collection burdens expected 

under the proposed standard. EEI states 

that the NOPR underestimated the cost 

burden because it failed to take into 

account the extent to which compliance 

‘‘will require significant coordination 

with other entities, the modification of 

existing maintenance programs, 

identification of affected plants as well 

as all affected substations.’’ 42

36. The Final Rule approves 

Reliability Standard PRC–005–3 

(Protection System and Automatic 

Reclosing Maintenance), which will 

replace PRC–005–2 (Protection System 

Maintenance). We decline to alter the 

burden estimate as calculated in the 

NOPR, as the only party to comment on 

the estimate (EEI) failed to point out any 

specific, quantifiable errors in the 

NOPR’s estimate or otherwise offered an 

alternative quantification. 

37. Further, in the NOPR, the 

Commission requested comment on the 

data retention requirements, explaining 

that PRC–005–3 requires applicable 

entities to maintain documentation of 

covered maintenance activities 

performed since the last audit, or of the 

two most recent maintenance cycles if 

the maintenance interval exceeds the 

normal audit cycle. Because the longest 

maintenance interval for certain 

components under PRC–005–3 is twelve 

years, an entity could be required to 

retain records for up to 24 years. 

38. EEI, Idaho Power, and G&T 

Cooperatives oppose continuation of the 

data retention requirement, claiming 

that it is unnecessary and burdensome 

to retain maintenance records for 24 

years, and noting that the record 

retention period far exceeds the normal 

audit cycle. Likewise, NERC avers that 

there is no ‘‘substantial need’’ to 

maintain the records for two full cycles. 

Further, NERC states that another 

version of the standard is being 

developed (version 4) that will reduce 

the data retention requirement so that 

records must only be maintained for the 

length of the audit cycle if the 

maintenance interval is shorter than the 

audit cycle, or for the length of the 

maintenance interval if not. 

39. We generally agree with NERC 

and other commenters that the current 

data retention requirement, with a 

maximum retention period of 24 years, 

is unnecessarily long and burdensome. 

However, since the issuance of the 

NOPR and subsequent comments, NERC 

has submitted a petition for approval of 

the version 4 standard, PRC–005–4, 

which includes a modified document 

retention requirement.43 Rather than 

ruling in the immediate docket, we will 

address the data retention issue in the 

context of NERC’s version 4 standard. 

As a result, there is no need to make 

corresponding adjustments to the 

NOPR’s burden estimate as part of this 

Final Rule. 

40. The approved Reliability Standard 

expands the applicability of the existing 

standard to include reclosing schemes 

that meet certain criteria, imposing 

mandatory minimum maintenance 

activities and maximum maintenance 

intervals for the various reclosing 

scheme components. Because the 

specific requirements were designed to 

reflect common industry practice, 

entities are not expected generally to 

experience a meaningful change in 

actual maintenance and documentation 

practices. However, applicable entities 

will have to perform a one-time review 

of their reclosing schemes to determine 

which ones fall under PRC–005–3, and, 

if they have applicable reclosing 

schemes, review current reclosing 

scheme maintenance programs to ensure 

that they meet the requirements of PRC– 

005–3. Accordingly, all information 

collection costs are expected to be 

limited to the first year of 

implementation of the revised standard. 

41. Public Reporting Burden: Our 

estimate below regarding the number of 

respondents is based on an analysis of 

the generating plants within the 

footprint of the PJM Interconnection, 

LLC (PJM) that meet the inclusion 

criteria of the proposed standard. There 

are an estimated 23 generating plants in 

PJM that meet these criteria. These 

generating plants represent 

approximately 47,000 MWs of the 

approximately 184,000 MWs within 

PJM. Based on 2012 data, total installed 

capacity in the continental United 

States is 1,153,000 MWs.44 Applying the 

PJM ratio to this total results in an 

estimated 144 plant sites nationwide to 

which PRC–005–3 would be applicable. 

We also assume that a substation will be 

located within 10 miles of each plant 

site, resulting in an estimated total 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
4200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

45This estimate conservatively assumes that the 

proximate substation would be owned by a different 

entity than the generating plant. 

46The estimates for cost per response are derived 

using the following formula: Average Burden Hours 

per Response * $73 per Hour = Average Cost per 

Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the 

average of the salary plus benefits for a manager and 

an engineer (rounded to the nearest dollar). The 

figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

at (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm). 47This figure reflects the generator owners and 

transmission owners identified in the NERC 

Compliance Registry as of May 28, 2014. 

48This figure is a subset of GOs and TOs, as 

discussed in P 41 and n. 44. 

49 5 U.S.C. 601–12. 

50The Small Business Administration sets the 

threshold for what constitutes a small business. 

Public utilities may fall under one of several 

different categories, each with a size threshold 

based on the company’s number of employees, 

including affiliates, the parent company, and 

subsidiaries. For the analysis in this Final Rule, we 

are using a 500 employee threshold for each 

affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric 

Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 

221121). 

number of entities that meet the 

inclusion criteria of 288.45 Finally, we 

assume that all generator owners and 

transmission owners must review their 

existing plant and substation sites to 

determine applicability under the 

proposed standard. 

42. Affected entities must perform a 

one-time review of their existing 

reclosing scheme maintenance program 

to ensure that it contains at a minimum 

the activities listed in Table 4 in 

Reliability Standard PRC–005–3, and 

that the activities are performed within 

the applicable maximum interval listed 

in Table 4. If the existing reclosing 

scheme maintenance program does not 

meet the criteria in Reliability Standard 

PRC–005–3, the entity will have to make 

certain adjustments to the program. 

RM14–8–000 (MANDATORY RELIABILITY STANDARDS: RELIABILITY STANDARD PRC–005–3) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Total number 

of responses 

Average 

burden and 

cost per 

response 46

Total annual 

burden hours 

and total 

annual cost 

Cost per 

respondent 

($) 

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

One-time review of existing plant and 

substation sites to determine which 

ones fall under PRC–005–3 ................. 47 937 1 937 2 

$146 

1,874 

$136,802 

$146 

One-time review and adjustment of existing program .......................................... 48 288 1 288 8 

$584 

2,304 

$168,192 

584 

Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,225 ........................ 4,178 

$304,994 

........................

Title: FERC–725P, Mandatory 

Reliability Standards: Reliability 

Standard PRC–005–3. 

Action: Final rule. 

OMB Control No: 1902–0269. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit and not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency of Responses: One time. 

Necessity of the Information: The 

approved Reliability Standard PRC– 

005–3 will implement the Congressional 

mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to develop mandatory and 

enforceable Reliability Standards to 

better ensure the reliability of the 

nation’s Bulk-Power System. 

Specifically, the standard will ensure 

that transmission and generation 

protection systems and reclosing relays 

affecting the reliability of the bulk 

electric system are maintained and 

tested. 

43. Internal review: The Commission 

has reviewed revised Reliability 

Standard PRC–005–3 and made a 

determination that approval of this 

standard is necessary to implement 

section 215 of the FPA. The 

Commission has assured itself, by 

means of its internal review, that there 

is specific, objective support for the 

burden estimates associated with the 

information requirements. 

44. 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]. 

45. Comments concerning the 

information collections approved in this 

Final Rule and the associated burden 

estimates should be sent to the 

Commission in this docket and may also 

be sent to the Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission]. For security 

reasons, comments should be sent by 

email to OMB at the following email 

address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Comments submitted to OMB should 

reference the collection number (FERC– 

725P) and OMB Control No. 1902–0269. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 49 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As shown in the information 

collection section, an estimated 288 

entities are expected to have applicable 

reclosing relays under the revised 

Reliability Standard. The proposed 

Reliability Standard requires applicable 

entities to test and maintain certain 

autoreclosing relays as part of a 

protection system maintenance 

program. More specifically, affected 

entities must perform a one-time review 

of their existing reclosing scheme 

maintenance program to ensure that it 

contains at a minimum the activities 

listed in Table 4 in Reliability Standard 

PRC–005–3. Comparison of the 

applicable entities with the 

Commission’s small business data 

indicates that approximately 197 are 

small entities 50 or 68.24 percent of the 

respondents affected by this Final Rule. 

47. As discussed above, we estimate 

that Reliability Standard PRC–005–3 

will apply to 144 generating plant sites 

and 144 substations that are located 

within 10 miles of the plant site. We 

therefore estimate that 288 entities will 

have applicable reclosing relays subject 

to the revised Reliability Standard’s 

requirements, conservatively assuming 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4201 

51Regulations Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

52 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 53See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

that the proximate substation would be 

owned by a different entity than the 

generating plant. In addition, we 

estimate that all generator owners and 

transmission owners will initially 

review plant and substation sites to 

determine applicability with the 

proposed standard. 

48. On average, each small entity 

affected may have a one-time cost of 

$730 per site, representing a one-time 

review of the program for each entity, 

consisting of 10 man-hours at $73/hour 

as explained above in the information 

collection statement. We do not 

consider this cost to be a significant 

economic impact for small entities. The 

Commission certifies that Reliability 

Standard PRC–005–3 will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

V. Environmental Analysis 

49. 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.51 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.52 The 

actions taken herein fall within this 

categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations. 

VI. Document Availability 

50. 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. 

51. 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. 

52. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at 202– 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date and Congressional 

Notification 

53. This Final Rule is effective March 

30, 2015. 

54. 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 1996.53 The Commission 

will submit the Final Rule to both 

houses of Congress and to the General 

Accountability Office. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Commissioner Honorable is voting present. 

Issued: January 22, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01424 Filed 1–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 310 

[Docket ID: DOD–2013–OS–0023] 

RIN 0790–AJ03 

DoD Privacy Program 

AGENCY: Deputy Chief Management 

Officer, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule; amendment. 

SUMMARY: This rule updates the 

established policies, guidance, and 

assigned responsibilities of the DoD 

Privacy Program pursuant to The 

Privacy Act and Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–130; 

authorizes the Defense Privacy Board 

and the Defense Data Integrity Board; 

prescribes uniform procedures for 

implementation of and compliance with 

the DoD Privacy Program; and delegates 

authorities and responsibilities for the 

effective administration of the DoD 

Privacy Program. 

This rule is part of DoD’s 

retrospective plan, completed in August 

2011, under Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review.’’ DoD’s full plan and updates 

can be accessed at: http://exchange.

regulations.gov/exchange/topic/eo13563. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

26, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samuel P. Jenkins, 703–571–0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

a. The need for the regulatory action 

and how the action will meet that need. 

An individual’s privacy is a 

fundamental legal right that must be 

respected and protected. This regulatory 

action ensures that DoD’s need to 

collect, use, maintain, or disseminate 

personally identifiable information (PII) 

about individuals for purposes of 

discharging its statutory responsibilities 

will be balanced against their right to be 

protected against unwarranted privacy 

invasions. This regulatory action also 

describes the rules of conduct and 

responsibilities of DoD personnel, DoD 

contractors, and DoD contractor 

personnel to ensure that any PII 

contained in a system of records that 

they access and use to conduct official 

business will be protected so that the 

security and confidentiality of the 

information is preserved. 

b. Succinct statement of legal 

authority for the regulatory action 

(explaining, in brief, the legal authority 

laid out later in the preamble). 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a, The Privacy Act 

of 1974, as amended, which requires the 

implementation of the Act by Federal 

agencies. 

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

This rule: 

a. Establishes rules of conduct for 

DoD personnel and DoD contractors 

involved in the design, development, 

operation, or maintenance of any system 

of records. 

b. Establishes appropriate 

administrative, technical, and physical 

safeguards to ensure the security and 

confidentiality of records and to protect 

against any anticipated threats or 

hazards to their security or integrity that 

could result in substantial harm, 

embarrassment, inconvenience, or 

unfairness to any individual about 

whom information is maintained. 

c. Ensures that guidance, assistance, 

and subject matter expert support are 

provided to the combatant command 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES