66182 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Administration, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803.

The official docket may be examined

in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the office of the Regional Air Traffic

Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and

Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP–

240), Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division, Air Traffic Rules

and Procedures Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)

267–9255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95–

ANE–35.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules Docket both

before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of

Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry

Center, APA–220, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or

by calling (202) 267–3485.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

alter VOR Federal Airways V–99, V–451

and Jet Route J–62. Specific portions of

each of the airways and jet route are no

longer necessary for navigation and

would be revoked. The airspace

designation for V–99 would be revoked

between Hartford, CT, and the GRAYM

intersection; V–451 would be revoked

between Groton, CT, and the SEEDY

intersection; and J–62 would be revoked

east of the Nantucket, CT, Very High

Frequency Omnidirectional Range

(VOR). Removing the obsolete segments

would eliminate clutter on the

aeronautical charts. Jet Routes and

Domestic VOR Federal airways are

published in paragraphs 2004 and

6010(a), respectively, of FAA Order

7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and

effective September 16, 1995, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The jet route and airways listed in

this document would be published

subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore—(1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as

the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 2004–Jet Routes

* * * * *

J–62 [Revised]

From Robbinsville, NJ; to Nantucket, MA.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a)—Domestic VOR Federal

Airways

* * * * *

V–99 [Revised]

From LaGuardia, NY, via INT LaGuardia

043° and Hartford, CT, 245° radials; Hartford.

* * * * *

V–451 [Revised]

From LaGuardia, NY; INT LaGuardia 063°

and Hampton, NY, 289° radials; INT

Hampton 289° and Calverton, NY, 044°

radials; INT Calverton 044° and Groton, CT,

243° radials; Groton.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

12, 1995.

Harold W. Becker,

Manager, Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division.

[FR Doc. 95–31100 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Rregulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 37

[Docket No. RM95–9–000]

Real-Time Information Networks and

Standards of Conduct; Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

December 13, 1995

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66183

1See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of

Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting

Utilities, Notice and Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 17662 (April 7, 1995),

IV FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,514 (March 29, 1995)

(hereinafter Open Access NOPR).

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission proposes to

amend its regulations to add Part 37

containing rules establishing and

governing real-time information

networks (RINs) and prescribing

standards of conduct. Under this

proposal, each public utility (or its

agent) that owns and/or controls

facilities used for the transmission of

electric energy in interstate commerce

would be required to create and/or

participate in a RIN that would provide

wholesale transmission customers and

potential wholesale transmission

customers with electronically provided

information on available wholesale

transmission capacity, prices, and other

information that will enable them to

obtain open access non-discriminatory

transmission service.

DATES: Written comments (an original

and 14 paper copies and one copy on a

computer diskette) must be received by

the Commission by February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marvin Rosenberg (Technical

Information), Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208–

1283

William C. Booth (Technical

Information), Office of Electric Power

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE. ,

Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208–

0849

Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information),

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE. , Washington, DC

20426 (202) 208–0321

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

document during normal business hours

in the Public Reference Room at 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing 202–208–1397 if

dialing locally or 1–800–856–3920 if

dialing long distance. To access CIPS,

set your communications software to

19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800,

2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no

parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. The

full text of this order will be available

on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and

Wordperfect 5.1 format. The complete

text on diskette in WordPerfect format

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor, La Dorn

Systems Corporation, also located in the

Public Reference Room at 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Real-time Information Networks and

Standards of Conduct, Docket No. RM95–9–

000, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Table of

Contents.

I. Introduction

II. Public Reporting Burden

III. Discussion

A. Background

B. Overview

C. What Types of Information Need to Be

Posted on a RIN

1. Summary of the ‘‘What’’ Working Group

Report

a. Introduction

b. Scope and Definitions

c. Posting Transaction Information

2. Discussion

a. RIN Objectives

b. ATC for Network Integration Service

c. ATC Calculation Methodology

d. Provisions for Unscheduled Flows

e. Paths for which ATC is not Posted

f. Differences in ATCs

g. Format for Transmission Tariffs

h. Posting Requirements for Recallability

and Curtailability

i. Communicating Curtailments and

Denials of Requests for Service

j. Posting Information about Ancillary

Services

k. Must Transmission Customers Resell

Unused Capability?

l. Posting Information about Resales

m. Mechanism for Discounting

Transmission Service Rates

n. Discussion of Generation Information

Related to Redispatch/Opportunity Costs

o. Discussion of Providing Additional

Information Beyond ATC

p. Requested Start and End Times/Dates

q. Transaction Anonymity

r. Auditing Transmission Service

Information

D. Technical Issues Concerning the

Development and Implementation of

RINS

1. Summary of the ‘‘How’’ Working Group

Report

a. Phase I Recommendations

b. Phase II Requirements

2. Discussion

a. Phasing

b. Standards Issues

i. Phase I Data Definitions for HTML Pages

and File Transfers

ii. Internet Browsers

iii. Bandwidth of Node Connections to the

Internet

iv. Common Codes

v. Data Compression Standards

vi. Templates for Upload and Download

Header Information

c. Costs

d. Access to RIN Information by the Public

e. The Number of RIN Nodes

f. Connections to Third Party Networks

g. Unresolved Issues

i. Price Discrimination Issues

ii. Transmission Services Information

Timing Requirements

iii.The Posting of Capacity Available for

Resale

E. Standards of Conduct

F. Applicability

1. Non-Public Utility Transmission

Providers

2. Public Utilities having no Transmission

Facilities with Commercial Value

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

V. Environmental Statement

VI. Information Collection Statement

VII. Public Comment Procedure

Regulatory Text

Attachment 1

I. Introduction

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) proposes to

amend 18 CFR to add Part 37 containing

rules establishing and governing realtime information networks (RINs) and

standards of conduct. We are issuing

this notice of proposed rulemaking in

conjunction with our previously

proposed Open Access rule.1

Under the proposed Open Access

rule, public utilities that own and/or

control facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce would be required

to provide open access, nondiscriminatory wholesale transmission

services. To ensure non-discriminatory

service, the proposed Open Access rule

requires the functional unbundling of

wholesale services. A public utility’s

uses of its own transmission system for

the purpose of engaging in wholesale

sales and purchases of electric energy

must be separated from other activities

and transmission services (including

ancillary services) must be taken under

filed transmission tariffs of general

applicability.

To ensure this separation of service,

the public utility must provide

customers with timely access to

transmission-related information. As we

stated in the Open Access NOPR,

‘‘functional unbundling means that the

public utility, in order to provide nondiscriminatory open access to

transmission and ancillary services

information, must rely upon the same

electronic network that its transmission

customers rely upon to obtain

transmission information about its
66184 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2Open Access NOPR at pp. 95–96.

3Although the full text of this document and

Attachment 1 will be published in the Federal

Register, the three appendices attached to this

document (Appendix ‘‘A’’—the report of the

‘‘what’’ working group, Appendix ‘‘B’’—the report

of the ‘‘how’’ working group, and Appendix ‘‘C’’—

templates for upload and download of files and

HTML displays) will not. The complete NOPR,

including these appendices, is available for

inspection and copying in the Commission’s Public

Reference Room and is accessible through the

Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an

electronic bulletin board service providing access to

Commission documents.

4See 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c).

system when buying or selling power.’’ 2

The rule we propose today is designed

to begin the process of achieving this

objective.

Under the proposed rule, each public

utility as defined in section 201(e) of the

Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e)

(1994), (or its agent) that owns and/or

controls facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce would be required

to develop and/or participate in a RIN.

The proposed regulations, relying

heavily on work already done by

representatives of all segments of the

electric power industry, describe what

information must be provided on the

RIN and how RINs are to be

implemented and used.

The Commission also proposes a code

of conduct that would apply to all

public utility transmission providers.

This code of conduct would require,

among other matters, a separation of the

utilities’ transmission system operations

and wholesale marketing functions, and

would define permissible and

impermissible contacts between

employees that conduct wholesale

generation marketing functions and

employees that handle transmission

system operations and reliability in the

system control center or at other

facilities or locations.

Within 60 days of publication of a

final rule in the Federal Register, public

utilities would be required to file with

the Commission procedures that would

enable customers and the Commission

to determine that public utilities are in

compliance with the RINs and code of

conduct requirements.

II. Public Reporting Burden

The proposed rule would require

transmission providers to establish and/

or participate in a RIN, which would

provide wholesale transmission users

and potential wholesale transmission

users with information by electronic

means about transmission capacity and

prices.

The following collection of

information contained in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review under section

3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). For copies of

the OMB submission, contact Michael

Miller at 202–208–1415. Comments are

solicited on the Commission’s need for

this information, whether the

information will have practical utility,

the accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondents’ burden,

including the use of automated

information techniques. Persons

wishing to comment on the collections

of information should direct their

comments to the Desk Officer FERC,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 3019NEOB, Washington, D.C.

20503, phone 202–395–3087, facsimile:

202–395–7285 or via the Internet at

hillierlt@a1.eop.gov. Comments must

be filed with the Office of Management

and Budget within 60 days of

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. 3 A copy of any

comments filed with the Office of

Management and Budget also should be

sent to the following address at the

Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Information Services

Division, Room 41–l7, Washington, DC

20426. For further information, contact

Michael Miller, 202–208–1415.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN

Data Collection No. of Respondents

No. of

Responses

Hours per

Response

Total annual

hours

Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 84 1 8352 701,568

Recordkeeping ........................................................................................................................... 84 1 1670 140,280

Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting + Recordkeeping, (if appropriate))=841,848.

Data collection costs: The

Commission seeks comments on the

costs to comply with these

requirements. It has projected the

average annualized cost per respondent

to be the following:

Annualized Capital/Startup

Costs ................................. $190,000

Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance) ..... $620,000

Total Annualized Costs ... $810,000

Internal Review

The Commission has reviewed the

proposed collection of information and

has determined that the collection of

information is necessary and conforms

to the Commission’s plan, as described

in this notice of proposed rulemaking,

for the collection, efficient management,

and use of the required information. The

Commission has assured itself, by

means of its internal review, that there

is specific, objective support for the

information burden estimate set forth

above.4

III. Discussion

A. Background

On March 29, 1995, the Commission

issued the Open Access NOPR

(referenced above). In the Open Access

NOPR, the Commission proposed rules

that would require public utilities that

own and/or control facilities used for

the transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce to provide

wholesale customers with transmission

services comparable to those that they

provide to themselves. The goal of the

Open Access NOPR is to eliminate

unduly discriminatory practices in the

provision of wholesale transmission

services in interstate commerce, and to

facilitate the development of a

competitive bulk power market.

The Open Access NOPR includes

minimum terms and conditions that a

public utility would have to include in

its wholesale transmission tariffs, the

types of transmission and related

ancillary services it must offer to its

customers, and a requirement that each

public utility purchase wholesale

transmission services for its new

wholesale sales and purchases under

the same transmission tariffs applicable

to its wholesale customers. The Open

Access NOPR also proposes that public

utilities be allowed to recover certain
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66185

5Real-Time Information Networks, 60 FR 17726

(April 7, 1995), IV FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,028

(March 29, 1995).

6 In the RIN Notice, we chose the term ‘‘Real-Time

Information Network’’ to describe the electronic

information system envisioned by that notice. We

chose that term because we wanted to distinguish

the RIN from the electronic bulletin board (EBB)

rules developed for the natural gas industry and

because we wanted to emphasize that information

would not be distributed to different users at

different times. However, we did not mean to

suggest that transmission providers would be

precluded from taking adequate time to evaluate

requests for service before responding to them.

Perhaps a more precise term would have been a

same-time information network.

In the two working group reports (discussed

below) we are urged to change the name ‘‘RIN’’ to

‘‘electronic information network’’, by the ‘‘what’’

working group, and to ‘‘transmission services

information network’’, by the ‘‘how’’ working

group. Either of these designations would be

equally acceptable. In the meantime, however, we

are retaining the title ‘‘RIN’’ to make clear that this

NOPR is proposing rules consistent with the ideas

expressed in the RIN Notice.

7This group is composed of 17 major transmitting

utilities, 3 non-utility suppliers, 10 transmission

dependent utilities (or groups of utilities), and two

state commissions, all located in the western United

States and western Canada (the geographic area

covered by the interconnected systems of the

Western Systems Coordinating Council).

legitimate and verifiable stranded costs

associated with certain requirements

contracts entered into prior to July 11,

1994.

We do not believe that open access

non-discriminatory transmission

services can be completely realized

until we remove real-world obstacles

that prevent transmission customers

from competing effectively with the

Transmission Provider. One of these

obstacles is unequal access to

transmission information. In the

Commission’s view, transmission

customers must have simultaneous

access to the same information available

to the Transmission Provider if truly

non-discriminatory transmission

services are to be a reality.

For this reason, when we issued the

Open Access NOPR we also issued a

notice of technical conference and

request for comments (RIN Notice) that

initiated this proceeding.5 In the RIN

Notice, the Commission announced that

we were considering establishing RIN

rules to effectuate the nondiscrimination goals of the Open Access

NOPR, and that we expected to require

a RIN or other options to ensure that

potential and actual transmission

service customers will receive access to

information.6

The Commission also announced its

goal to establish uniform requirements

for a RIN or other communications

device at the same time that it adopts a

rule requiring open access nondiscriminatory transmission services. To

accomplish this objective, the

Commission invited interested persons

to file comments and to participate in a

technical conference, where they could

make presentations on their positions.

As a starting point, the Commission

attached to the RIN Notice a

Commission Staff paper identifying

various RIN-related issues, and directed

commenters to respond to the specific

issues identified in the Staff paper and

to provide their general comments on

the RIN concept. The RIN Notice stated

that the Commission expected to hold

informal conferences, enlisting working

groups to discuss any remaining issues,

and that input from the technical

conference and informal conferences

would be the basis for subsequent

procedures. The RIN Notice set a

timetable to be followed, so that RIN

requirements could be in place no later

than the effective date of a final rule on

open access.

Question 1. We seek comment on whether

to continue to call the information network

a ‘‘RIN’’ and, if not, what name should be

used in its place.

In response to the RIN Notice, Kansas

City Power & Light Company and

Continental Power Exchange, Inc.

sponsored a forum on EBBs held on

March 31, 1995 in Kansas City. That

forum was attended by more than 50

representatives of the 17 entities with

open access filings (at that time) at the

Commission, along with state regulators

from Kansas and Missouri, and the

Edison Electric Institute (EEI). A followup workshop on EBBs and RINs,

sponsored by EEI, was held in Kansas

City on April 19, 1995, and was

attended by more than 150 people from

all segments of the electric industry.

The North American Electric

Reliability Council (NERC) and its nine

regional councils offered to act as

sponsor and neutral facilitator for the

electric industry regarding electronic

information systems to:

• Determine the information requirements

of transmission users;

• Develop industry wide standards for

reporting and using this information;

• Ensure that any information systems

developed can build upon and be compatible

with existing information systems in the

industry; and

• Meet the Commission’s goal of ensuring

that potential purchasers of transmission

services would receive access to information

to enable them to obtain open access

transmission service on a non-discriminatory

basis.

The EEI workshop participants

accepted NERC’s offer to facilitate

industry discussions on RINs. They also

decided that, rather than awaiting

Commission-drafted standards, they

would try to develop an industry wide

consensus, for submittal to the

Commission, that would ensure fair and

equal participation by both transmission

customers and transmission providers

and that would define the necessary

information requirements and standards

for a RIN.

Accordingly, on May 3–4, 1995, NERC

called together a sub-group of workshop

participants, representing all categories

of transmission users and providers, to

draft a model or ‘‘straw man’’ document

that would outline a preliminary list of

minimum information requirements for

transmission users (i.e., what

information should be included on a

RIN) and to reach agreement on what

would constitute a fair and inclusive

process for reaching consensus among

transmission user groups on information

requirements for a RIN. The resulting

consensus document (Strawman 1) set

the agenda for subsequent discussions at

five regional workshops, held across the

country, with participation by over 500

individuals from all segments of the

electric power industry. The strawman

group issued a revised document

(Strawman 2), on June 2, 1995, based on

those discussions. Strawman 2 was

distributed to the participants in the

regional workshops and to Commission

Staff and served as the discussion point

for a NERC-sponsored workshop held in

Washington, DC on June 26–28, 1995.

Although participants at this workshop

were not able to reach consensus on

numerous issues, they were able to

identify the important unresolved issues

and where efforts would need to be

made to reach consensus.

Other groups also got involved early

on with RIN-related issues. For

example, the Western Group 7 began

working in February 1995 (prior to

issuance of the RIN Notice) on standards

for the electronic information systems

needed for implementation of

comparable transmission service. WRTA

members were joined in their

discussions by members of the

Southwest Regional Transmission

Association (SWRTA), and the

Northwest Regional Transmission

Association (NWRTA). Together,

WRTA, SWRTA, and NWRTA held a

series of informal workshops to discuss

tariff issues. Representatives of the

Western Group also attended the April

19, 1995 meeting sponsored by EEI on

national RIN standards and participated

in the NERC process.

In all, 108 sets of comments were

submitted to the Commission in

response to the RIN Notice. Although

the comments were nearly uniformly

favorable to the RIN concept, the
66186 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

8 In designing proposed RINs regulations dealing

with what may be required in the Final Open

Access rule, our assumptions should in no way be

taken as prejudging the various issues involved in

the Open Access rulemaking.

comments exposed many disagreements

about what information should be

contained on a RIN, what kind of a RIN

system or systems should be required,

what transactions should be covered,

how terms should be defined, etc.

However, most commenters understood

that access to transmission

information—by all parties at the same

time—is essential to ensuring nondiscriminatory open access transmission

services.

The comments led to a technical

conference on RINs (Technical

Conference) held in Washington, DC on

July 27 and 28, 1995. Panels at the

Technical Conference discussed the

status of industry efforts to date,

industry standards for information

systems, what information is needed on

a RIN, how a RIN should be structured,

what issues need to be resolved, and

what steps should be taken next. In

addition, demonstrations were

presented on different transmission

information systems and energy trading

systems.

The participants in the July 27, 1995

conference agreed that the NERCsponsored process, seeking to reach

consensus and make recommendations

to the Commission on what information

should be included on a RIN, should

continue, with NERC acting as a

facilitator to promote participants

reaching consensus and to prepare a

‘‘what’’ report to the Commission

describing areas of consensus and nonconsensus. The participants also agreed

that another industry-sponsored

working group should be created, with

the Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) acting as a facilitator to promote

consensus on ‘‘how’’ to implement a

system that would accomplish these

objectives, and to prepare a ‘‘how’’

report to the Commission.

The NERC and EPRI representatives

pledged to conduct an open process that

would keep all interested persons

informed of developments by the

working groups and that would provide

input from interested persons to

working group members. Interested

persons also were invited to attend open

workshops sponsored by both working

groups.

The ‘‘what’’ industry working group

consisted of 26 members providing

balanced representation from all

segments of the electric power industry

and included liaisons from the

Commission, the ‘‘how’’ working group,

NARUC, and Canadian utilities. Major

industry trade groups sent observers. On

October 9, 1995, the ‘‘what’’ working

group made a draft report available for

public review. On October 16, 1995, it

submitted a final report to the

Commission.

Following the Technical Conference,

the ‘‘how’’ working group used a similar

open and representative process that

included participation by all industry

and customer segments. On October 16,

1995, the ‘‘how’’ working group

submitted to the Commission its report

on how a RIN should be implemented.

The two working group reports

address both the issues on which the

participants were able to reach

consensus and the issues on which no

consensus was reached. Additionally,

nine sets of comments were filed by

working group participants who wished

to provide a fuller explanation of their

views on particular issues. We will

address the issues raised by the working

group reports below.

B. Overview

In what follows we discuss first, in

section C below, what types of

information must be posted on the RIN.

The Commission proposes to adopt

most of the technical parameters agreed

to by the ‘‘what’’ working group. Our

final rule would include general

regulations governing who must

develop and maintain RINs and what

information must be posted on the RIN.

Next, in section D below, we discuss the

technical issues surrounding the

implementation and use of RINs. We

propose to set out the details of these

requirements in a publication that

would be entitled Standardized Data

Sets and Communication Protocols and

that would be issued as part of our final

RIN rule. We propose to implement the

RINS in two phases, with the first phase

(Phase I) being completed when the

Open Access rule goes into effect. In the

discussion below, we address the

specific, and at times very technical,

issues considered respectively by the

‘‘what’’ and ‘‘how’’ working groups.

In section E below, we consider

proposed standards of conduct

governing the separation of transmission

and generation functions. These

standards are, we believe, a necessary

adjunct to the RINs to ensure nondiscriminatory access. The proposed

standards are drawn from those that

have been developed in our regulation

of the natural gas industry. Last, in

section F, we discuss issues of

applicability for the proposed RINS and

standards of conduct.

In setting out proposed requirements

for implementing RINs, our primary

objective is to establish regulations that

ensure the accessibility of all

information necessary to the full and

fair implementation of the requirements

of the Open Access NOPR. The problem,

of course, is that we do not now know

the specifics of the final Open Access

rule. Yet, the information that will be

required to be posted depends upon

what is required or permitted under the

final Open Access rule. For example,

what must be posted on the RIN

regarding the resale of transmission

depends upon whether, in the final

Open Access Rule, resales are permitted

and, if so, under what conditions.

Similarly, what information must be

posted regarding transmission pricing

discounting will depend upon whether,

in the final Open Access Rule,

discounting is permitted and, if so,

under what conditions. These are just

two examples, and are not inclusive, of

RINs information that may change

depending on what is in the final open

access rule.

The final RIN rule will be designed to

accommodate whatever final open

access rules the Commission adopts and

whatever industry structures evolve to

meet those rules. In the interim, the RIN

proposal follows the Proposed Open

Access Rule. For example, it assumes

that resales will be permitted 8

Similarly, the proposed RIN standards

are designed to accommodate the so

called ‘‘contract path’’ approach

presently used in today’s electricity

markets. However, the Commission is

open to other approaches that may

develop in the future under an Open

Access regime. Consequently,

commenters should consider how the

proposed RINS and standards of

conduct regulations can be designed to

meet these needs.

Question 2. What issues associated with

RIN standards would have to be addressed if

in an open access transmission environment

the electric power industry moves to regional

pricing, flow-based pricing, or other pricing

models that depart from the ‘‘contract path’’

approach presently used for pricing electric

transmission service? How in structuring RIN

standards can the Commission provide for

this contingency?

C. What Types of Information Need To

Be Posted on a RIN

1. Summary of the ‘‘What’’ Working

Group Report

The ‘‘what’’ working group report

(What Report), represents a broad

consensus of all segments of the electric

utility industry. It summarizes the

functional requirements for Real-Time

Information Networks to facilitate open

access to the transmission system.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66187

9What Report at 8.

10What Report at 10.

11What Report at 15.

12What Report at 14.

a. Introduction

The What Report starts with a number

of general assumptions and definitions.

They include phasing of RIN

implementation (Phases I and II),

functional separation, accessibility to

the RIN and definitions for

‘‘transmission provider’’, ‘‘transmission

customer’’, and ‘‘transmission

provider’s tariff.’’ The What Report for

the most part only addresses

recommended Phase I requirements.

The What Report states that the RIN

will include viewing tools enabling

equivalent, basic access to the data base

for all RIN users. However, many users

will desire to customize their access to

the data base and have the information

presented in a variety of ways tailored

to their individual needs. The RIN itself

will not seek to satisfy this need.

Instead, private software developers will

be permitted and encouraged to develop

and market customized viewing tools

for the RIN.

The What Report lists five objectives

of the RIN which are discussed in

section C.2.(a) below. It recommends

that, at least initially, the RIN be used

as a transmission service reservation

system, and not as a transmission

scheduling system. Scheduling involves

actually implementing a service on

control area computers. Thus, the RIN is

separate from system operations, and

system reliability is handled separately.

The decision to include transmission

service scheduling on the RIN is left to

later development.

Finally, the report discusses the

requirement that information posted on

the RIN will be date and time stamped

and automatically stored in

downloadable log files so that audits

can be performed as required.

b. Scope and Definitions

The second section of the report deals

with scope and definitions. The What

Report makes a distinction between

‘‘near-term’’ and ‘‘far-term’’

transmission service requests. ‘‘Nearterm’’ requests can be responded to

quickly without additional work. ‘‘Farterm’’ requests require off-line studies to

determine if the request for service can

be accommodated.

The What Report also states that it

does not seem possible to post

availability for Network Integration

Service Transmission on the RIN.

Therefore, only the available

transmission capability (ATC) for pointto-point transmission service would be

posted on the RIN.

The What Report discusses the

concept of ATC and gives some

consideration to calculating it. Although

the What Report recognizes that a

consistent methodology is needed, no

such methodology is proposed in the

report.

The What Report discusses the

concept of ‘‘transmission paths’’ for

which ATC is to be reported and

provides some guidelines for calculating

ATC. It appears from the discussion in

the What Report that ATC calculations

over transmission paths would reflect

the impacts of parallel flows. Although

a contract path can be the basis for a

commercial transmission transaction,

such a transaction will use a

combination of one or more

transmission paths. A transmission path

may be a single path or sequence of

contiguous paths that form a continuous

electrical connection. In alternating

current systems, electricity will not flow

solely on the contract path, but will

flow on the entire transmission system

of the interconnection in accordance

with the laws of physics. Transmission

Providers are urged to develop

regionally accepted methods of

attributing all contributions of loading

to each transmission path including the

effects of the real flow contribution of

all transactions.

A major concern for the ‘‘what’’

working group (What Group) is over

potential differences between the ATC

posted on the RIN and the capability

actually available when requested. The

What Report points out that ATC

calculations are only engineering

estimates. There is no guarantee that

they are correct. It states that ‘‘[t]he

amount of ATC posted shall be that

amount that the Responsible Party

expects, in good faith, to be available on

a specific interface or Path in a specific

direction, based on engineering analysis

and other information that is available

to the Responsible Party at the time of

the posting.’’ 9 Also, conditions may

change between the time the ATC is

calculated and when service is

requested.

Under the What Group’s proposal, the

posting of ATC is not to be required

until a business need arises for a

transmission path. ‘‘A ‘business need’ is

signified by a request from a

Transmission Customer concerning

information or a reservation on a Path

which has the potential to be

constrained.’’ 10 The What Report

proposes two new attributes for

transmission service to replace the

terms ‘‘firm’’ and ‘‘non-firm’’ that are

believed to be causing confusion as to

the basic nature of transmission

services. The new attributes are

recallability and curtailability. All

transmission service is curtailable.

Curtailment is made only in cases

‘‘where system reliability is threatened

and/or emergency conditions exist.’’ 11

Recallability is ‘‘the right of a

Transmission Provider to interrupt all or

part of a transmission service for any

reason that is not unduly discriminatory

* * * .’’ 12 The What Report states that

recallability distinguishes between firm

and non-firm service. According to the

What Report, firm service is not

recallable.

The What Report defines a standard

set of attributes for describing

transmission products on the RIN.

The scope and definitions section

concludes with discussions of several

areas of non-consensus. The What

Group could not agree on the following:

whether and how to post information

about ancillary services on the RIN;

whether transmission customers not

using transmission capability that they

reserve must make it available to others;

whether to post all discounts or only

those provided to affiliates; and whether

generator cost and status information to

verify redispatch/opportunity cost

charges must be available on the RIN.

c. Posting Transaction Information

The Posting Transaction Information

section discusses four major types of

information that are to be posted on the

RIN:

1. Available Transmission Capability

Information;

2. Transmission Providers’ Product

Offerings and Prices;

3. Specific Transmission Service

Requests; and

4. Informal Transmission

Communications.

The What Report itemizes the

information that should be posted in

each of these areas. A table identifies

who is responsible for posting what on

the RIN. The What Group was unable to

reach consensus on whether to require

the posting of additional information

beyond ATC. Some believe that

additional information is needed as a

safeguard against anti-competitive

behavior and provides valuable

information about transmission

constraints. This information includes

the run status of generators that have a

significant impact on ATC, information

about constrained transmission lines,

and the identity and status of facilities

causing curtailments. Others believe

that this additional information is

unnecessary and burdensome. This
66188 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

13What Report at 6.

14What Report at 121.

information also is believed to be

commercially sensitive.

A second area of non-consensus was

whether individual transmission

requests and responses should be made

known only to the Transmission

Customer making the request, the

Transmission Provider to whom the

request was made and, to the extent

necessary, the affected control area

operators and/or security centers or to

all users of the RIN on a same-time

basis. Some argue that this information

is commercially sensitive and should be

limited just to the parties in a

transaction. Others believe that full

disclosure is important to safeguard

against potential anti-competitive

behavior. A compromise was proposed,

but not agreed to, to delay release of this

information for a certain time.

2. Discussion

The What Group assumed the task of

developing recommended requirements

for the information to be posted on a

RIN that would meet the industry’s need

for customer access to information about

wholesale transmission services. In the

text that follows, we will discuss these

recommendations and will identify

those recommendations that at this stage

we reject (as previously noted, further

background is provided by the complete

What Report, attached to this NOPR as

Appendix ‘‘A’’). We also will discuss

certain issues not addressed by the

What Group.

a. RIN Objectives

The Commission proposes to modify

slightly the five objectives listed in the

What Report. The changes are intended

to expand and better define the

objectives. The revised objectives are:

1. Allow Transmission Customers to make

requests for transmission services offered by

Transmission Providers and the secondary

market;

2. Allow Transmission Customers to view

and download in standard formats, using

standard protocols, necessary information

regarding the transmission system to enable

prudent business decision making;

3. Provide a mechanism for posting,

viewing, uploading and downloading of

information between customers and

providers regarding available products and

desired services;

4. Enable all Transmission Customers to

clearly identify the extent to which their

transmission service requests and/or

schedules were denied or curtailed and how

their treatment compares to that of their

competitors; and

5. Allow Transmission Customers to access

in electronic format information supporting

ATC calculations and historical transmission

service requests and schedules for various

audit purposes.

The What Report states that ‘‘[i]n

instances where requests are denied or

transactions are curtailed, the RIN

should provide a mechanism for

Transmission Providers to communicate

to Transmission Customers (1) the

reason those transactions could not be

accommodated and (2) the options, if

any, for adjusting operation of the

system to increase transfer capability in

order to accommodate those

transactions.’’ 13 The Commission

wishes to clarify that since scheduling

and the curtailment of schedules will

not be done through the RIN initially,

this curtailment information would be

for information purposes only.

b. ATC for Network Integration Service

The What Report states that it is not

possible to post the availability of

Network Integration Service

Transmission on a RIN. The

Commission recognizes that before-thefact measurement of the availability of

network transmission service is

difficult. Nonetheless, the Commission

believes that it is important to give

potential network customers an easy-tounderstand indicator of service

availability (e.g., in MWs), in addition to

power flow data and other studies used

by utilities to support the calculation of

ATC.

Question 3. The Commission requests

comments on how best to post the

availability of network transmission service

on the RIN. Should Transmission Providers

be required to post conservative estimates as

a preliminary matter that could be improved

with additional study? Is there an alternative

service concept that is more suitable to

measurement than the current version of

network service?

As discussed in section C.2.(o) below,

information supporting ‘‘point-to-point’’

service ATC calculations is required to

be available for download. This

information should help potential

network customers assess the

availability of network service

capability.

c. ATC Calculation Methodology

The What Group notes that the

proposed Open Access rule requires that

the utility ‘‘describe the method used to

estimate ATC in sufficient detail to

allow others to do the same analysis.’’ 14

However, the proposed Open Access

rule does not propose a methodology for

calculating ATC. The What Report

contains some useful guidelines for

calculating ATC/Total Transmission

Capability (TTC), but does not present

specific methodologies.

In calculating ATC, public utilities

will need to reserve enough capacity to

ensure the reliable operation of the

transmission system. Thus, the

Transmission Provider (or its designated

agent) will need to calculate the

additional transfer capability that is

available without violating reliability

limits. Because of uncertainties in

system conditions and utilities’ reliance

on interconnections to provide

generation reserves during emergencies,

the Transmission Provider must

calculate an appropriate transmission

margin. Transmission margin

calculations should be based on the

published standards, criteria and

guides, and operating experience of the

individual Transmission Provider (as

filed with FERC as part of FERC Form

715 and as filed in transmission tariffs).

These calculations must be consistent

with industry standards, and these

standards must be available for review

on the RIN.

The Commission expects that an

ATC/TTC calculation methodology can

be developed on a consistent, industrywide basis and encourages efforts to do

so. We understand that some of the

details may need to differ to reflect

regional or utility- specific situations.

Transmission Providers are expected to

use prudent utility practice to determine

ATC. The Commission understands that

utilities have historically responded to

requests for transmission service using

prudent utility practice to determine if

sufficient capacity is available to

accommodate the request. These

practices vary by region and even by

utility. Determination of ATC has been

made with computer software with a

level of complexity that varies from one

Transmission Provider to another or

with simple formulas or graphical tools

(nomograms) created with a mixture of

engineering analysis and engineering

judgment. The Commission requires the

use of the best tools for determining

ATC available to the Transmission

Provider at the time. Our requirement to

provide data and methods on the RIN is

to be understood in this context; it may

require, for example, posting of the

nomograms, the data applied to them, a

description of the procedure for

applying the data to the nomogram, and

an explanation of how the nomogram is

derived.

However, the Transmission Provider

must strictly adhere to the limits

imposed by the resulting ATC

determination in its own use of

transmission. It must also provide

adequate data for the Commission and

other industry participants to monitor
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66189

15What Report at 8. 16What Report at 14.

17What Report at 15.

18HTLM stands for Hyper Text Markup Language.

19 60 FR at 17683–85.

any potential violations of the ATC limit

by the Transmission Provider. Further,

if the Transmission Provider revises its

ATC calculation for any time period, the

new availability of transmission

capacity must be posted on the RIN in

a manner that allows all transmission

customers an equal opportunity to apply

for its use.

The Commission urges Transmission

Providers to improve and coordinate

methods of estimating ATC. This will

improve the efficiency of capacity

utilization by all parties, including the

Transmission Provider itself, while

maintaining system reliability. We

expect that such improved methods and

prudent utility practice in the future

will require cooperative regional

calculation of ATC by all Transmission

Providers in a region. We believe that all

Transmission Providers should take the

same approach to calculating ATC/TTC

and use the same basic methodology.

Question 4. The Commission requests

comment on how to develop a consistent,

industry-wide method of calculating ATC/

TTC.

d. Provisions for Unscheduled Flows

The What Report states that

‘‘[a]ppropriate provision must be made

to properly account for ‘‘unscheduled

flow’’ through each Path resulting from

each known transaction.’’ 15 This should

not be interpreted as making the

requirements in this proposed

rulemaking depend on resolution of this

issue.

e. Paths for Which ATC Is Not Posted

The What Report states that ATC

should be posted for paths as business

needs arise. Some Paths are minor ties

between utilities or control areas for

which transfer capability calculations

have not yet been performed and on

which no constraint is anticipated

because of the lack of commercial

activity. A ‘‘business need’’ is defined,

in part, by a transmission customer

requesting information about a path.

The business need limitation is

intended to limit the number of paths

for which ATC must be posted.

However, it is not clear that it does. For

example, the Open Access rulemaking

proposes that Transmission Providers

must take wholesale transmission

service under their own tariff. This

makes them transmission customers.

Any wholesale trade they do over these

minor ties would appear to trigger the

‘‘business need’’ requirement for ATC

posting.

Another approach to limiting the

burden of ATC calculations is to allow

Transmission Providers to adjust the

amount of effort put into calculating

ATC and the frequency of recalculating

ATC based on the level of commercial

interest in a path and how constrained

the path is over time. For paths that are

never constrained because of the lack of

commercial activity, a rough estimate of

capability could be posted and could be

updated rarely. For constrained paths, a

much more accurate calculation of

capability is needed and it should be

updated frequently.

Question 5. The Commission requests

comments on ways to minimize the burden

of ATC calculations, while ensuring that

wholesale transmission customers have the

information they need.

f. Differences in ATCs

Because parties on either side of an

interface each may use different

engineering assumptions, they may

calculate different ATC values. The

What Report says that the lower ATC

must be used. The Commission expects

that differences in ATCs will be small

and will narrow over time as

Transmission Providers work to develop

consistent methods of calculating ATC.

g. Format for Transmission Tariffs

The Commission agrees with the

recommendation of the What Group that

providers must provide downloadable

files of their complete tariffs on the RIN.

However, the What Report says that the

format of these files should be one

generally accepted by all utilities in the

region. The issue of the format for the

transmission tariffs will be addressed in

the Open Access rule. This format

would also be the format for tariffs

available on the RIN.

Question 6. The Commission requests

comment on a standard format for electronic

submission of transmission tariffs to the

Commission.

h. Posting Requirements for

Recallability and Curtailability

The What Report states that ‘‘[o]ther

elements of Recallable service which

will be posted on an EIN include:

permissible reasons for recall, recall

procedures, reinstatement provisions

and placement in the request queue as

applicable.’’ 16 Because the permissible

reasons for recall, recall procedures, and

reinstatement provisions are defined in

the tariff and the tariff is available for

download on the RIN, they do not need

to be posted separately.

Similarly, the report says

‘‘curtailment information which will be

posted on the RIN as part of the product

definition includes: permissible reasons

for curtailment, notice required,

curtailment procedures, and curtailment

priority relative to other classes and

other customers in the same class if

necessary due to FERC curtailment

queuing policy.’’ 17 The Commission

proposes that if the permissible reasons

for curtailment, notice required,

curtailment procedures, and curtailment

priority are defined in the tariff and the

tariff is available for download on the

RIN, they do not need to be posted

separately.

i. Communicating Curtailments and

Denials of Requests for Service

The Commission proposes that when

requests for service are denied, or when

transactions are curtailed, Transmission

Providers must communicate to

transmission customers, through a

mechanism that they must install into

the RIN: (1) The reason(s) that the

transaction(s) could not be

accommodated; and (2) the available

options, if any, for adjusting the

operation of the Transmission

Provider’s system to increase transfer

capability in order to accommodate the

transaction(s).

Question 7. The Commission requests

comments on what information about

curtailments and denials of requests for

service should be communicated on a RIN.

Question 8. What specifications would be

needed for information about curtailments

and denials of requests for service to be

posted in HTML displays and what

specifications and formats would be needed

to standardize downloadable files? 18

j. Posting Information About Ancillary

Services

The What Group was unable to define

requirements for the posting of

information about ancillary services.

Ancillary services are those services

necessary to support the transmission of

electric power from seller to purchaser

at wholesale given the obligations of

control areas and transmitting utilities

within those control areas to maintain

reliable operations of the interconnected

transmission system. Basic wholesale

transmission service without ancillary

services may be of little or no value to

prospective customers. A variety of

ancillary services is needed in

conjunction with providing basic

wholesale transmission service to a

customer. The following six ancillary

services are identified in the Open

Access NOPR: 19

1. Loss Compensation Service;

2. Load Following Service;

3. System Protection Service;
66190 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

4. Energy Imbalance Service;

5. Reactive Power/Voltage Control

Service; and

6. Scheduling and Dispatching

Service.

The Commission proposes that the

Transmission Provider post offers for

ancillary services on the RIN. Other

entities offering the same ancillary

services shall have a comparable right to

post offers on the RIN.

Question 9. The Commission requests

comment on where on the RIN offers by other

entities to provide ancillary service should be

placed. The What Report states that these

offers should be posted in the ‘‘Informal

Transmission Communications’’ section of

the RIN. Would this place third-party

providers at a disadvantage relative to the

Transmission Provider?

The Commission proposes that

entities that post offers to provide

ancillary services on the RIN should pay

the costs associated with posting this

information.

Question 10. The Commission requests

comments on how to determine the costs

associated with posting ancillary services on

the RIN.

Question 11. With regard to information

about offers to provide ancillary services

provided by an entity other than the

Transmission Provider, what specifications

would be needed for this information to be

posted in HTML displays and what

specifications and formats would be needed

to standardize downloadable files?

The following information about

ancillary services is important to

wholesale transmission users and

should be posted on the RIN:

• Ancillary services that are available from

the Transmission Provider;

• Ancillary services that may be provided

by the transmission customer or third parties;

• Price of each ancillary service;

• Which ancillary services, if any, are

bundled with transmission service;

• Paths that the ancillary services

information pertains to;

• Deviation band, if any;

• Whether the rates for any specific

ancillary service would change if taken in

combination with any other ancillary service,

such as operating reserve and load following;

• Whether any technical limitations exist

on who could provide specific ancillary

services;

• Whether the rights of ancillary services

are reassignable; and

• Identity of third party if ancillary

services are being procured from a third

party.

Question 12. The Commission requests

comment on whether there is any additional

information needed about ancillary services

that is not included in the list. Is any

information on the list not needed?

Although the ancillary service

information on the RIN should be the

most current information available to

the Transmission Provider, the

information on ancillary services will

not change as frequently as the

information on the capability

availability. However, there is definitely

a need to update ancillary services

information on RIN on an ongoing basis.

Question 13. The Commission requests

comment on how often ancillary services

information should be updated.

Ancillary services information should

be posted for each transmission path of

the Transmission Provider for which

ATC is posted. If there are exceptions to

the general applicability of the ancillary

services posting requirements because

of technical limitations on a specific

interface, it should be so stated.

k. Must Transmission Customers Resell

Unused Capability?

The What Report raised the question

of whether Transmission Customers

should be required to make available to

other wholesale customers unused

transmission capability to which they

have rights. This issue is not a RINs

issue and will be addressed in the Open

Access rule.

l. Posting Information About Resales

Although the What Report states that

a Transmission Customer should be able

to post its transmission capability rights

for resale, it does not say where resale

offers are to be posted on the RIN. This

issue is addressed in section D.2(g)iv

below.

m. Mechanism for Discounting

Transmission Service Rates

The What Report raises a question

about whether all transmission rate

discounts should be posted on the RIN

on the basis that a competitive market

can be achieved only through nondiscriminatory discounting. An

alternative posed in the What Report is

to post only discounts that a

Transmission Provider provides to itself

or its affiliates. This is to police selfdealing and affiliate favoritism which

are not an issue in other transactions. It

is important to distinguish between an

offer of a discount and a discount

already given. The Commission is

proposing, in the proposed standards of

conduct, to require a Transmission

Provider that offers any discount to

itself or to its merchant function or an

affiliate to offer, at the same time, on the

RIN, comparable discounts for similar

service to all Transmission Customers.

As to discounts that the Transmission

Provider has agreed to give to any

Transmission Customer (affiliated or

unaffiliated), the Commission is

proposing that these discounts must be

posted on the RIN within 24 hours after

the agreement is entered into (measured

from when ATC is adjusted in response

to the agreement), and that they remain

posted for 30 days.

Question 14. The Commission seeks

comment on whether all transmission

discounts should be posted on the RIN, or

only those provided to the Transmission

Provider or its affiliates. If discounts are to

be posted, when should this be done? Also,

commenters should address whether

requiring the Transmission Provider to offer

‘‘comparable discounts for similar service to

all transmission customers’’ is necessary and/

or sufficient to prevent unduly

discriminatory pricing practices.

The Commission proposes that the

information about discounts to affiliates

should be posted on the RIN using

HTML displays and as files that are

available for download.

Question 15. Regarding information on

affiliate discounts, what specifications are

needed for the information to be posted in

HTML displays and what specifications and

formats are needed for the downloadable

files?

n. Discussion of Generation Information

Related To Redispatch/Opportunity

Costs

Opportunity or redispatch costs are

meant to compensate a party that gives

up its right to wholesale transmission

service so that another party can take

service. The opportunity/redispatch

costs associated with increasing the

ATC of a constrained Transmission Path

will depend upon the time, duration

and nature of the requested

transmission use because of the

dynamics of system loads, economic

dispatch, outages, loop flow, the types

of generation resources involved, the

availability and cost of energy storage,

and other operating conditions expected

during the time of use. The What Report

raises the issue of whether the ability of

the Transmission Provider to impose

these costs on the Transmission

Customer requires the posting of

generator run status and cost

information on the RIN.

Transmission Providers may charge

only for legitimate and verifiable

opportunity/redispatch costs.

Information needed to verify these costs

is required to be provided to the

Transmission Customer charged on

request. This information is not required

to be posted on the RIN.

o. Discussion of Providing Additional

Information Beyond ATC

The proposed rules on Open Access

state that ‘‘[t]he utility must make all

data used in calculating the ATC
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66191

20What Report at 121.

21A nomogram defines the interactive

relationship of the transfer capability of a

transmission path to other system conditions,

especially power flows on one or more other

transmission paths.

22What Report at 24.

23What Report at 26.

24See What Report at 31.

publicly available.’’ 20 This information

must be available for download on the

RIN.

Question 16. The Commission requests

comments on how the data used in

calculating ATC should be formatted. Should

it be in free form text, predefined tables, or

comma delimited ASCII files? If in free form

text, should it be in plain ASCII text or in a

word processor format, such as WordPerfect

or Word?

Question 17. The Commission requests

comments on what is the appropriate time

delay for making supporting information on

ATC available. Should the Commission

require specific formats for ATC supporting

data? If so, what should the formats be?

Near-Term Transmission Information

The What Report provides arguments

for and against providing additional

information beyond ATC on the RIN.

Those entities who are against providing

additional information argue that this

information is of little practical use,

sufficiently voluminous to substantially

reduce performance of the RIN, and

burdensome to provide. They further

argue that some of this information is

competitive data. Those entities who are

in favor of providing additional

information beyond ATC on the RIN

argue that the additional information

will increase the confidence of

transmission customers in the validity

of the posted ATC and that this

information will help the transmission

customers anticipate with greater

certainty whether to attempt to request

and schedule resources that may be

subject to curtailment due to projected

loading trends on certain system

components.

The Commission believes that the

issue of customer confidence can be

addressed through audits of posted ATC

values or by raising the issue at regional

forums or filing a complaint with the

Commission. However, the Commission

also believes that transmission

customers should have as much

pertinent information available as will

enable them to make informed decisions

about the relative quality of wholesale

transmission services they intend to

request and purchase.

The Commission therefore proposes

to require that Transmission Providers

post information about those system

elements that have a direct and

significant impact on ATC. Such

elements could include generators,

transmission lines, phase shifters, series

and shunt capacitors, static VAR

compensators, special protection

systems or remedial action schemes, etc.

In addition, the Commission proposes to

require the posting of actual path

loadings in addition to the path

schedules.

Question 18. To keep the amount of

information on the RIN manageable, the

Commission requests comment on whether it

is sufficient to provide information only

about planned outages and return dates (for

both planned and forced outages) for those

system elements deemed to have a direct and

significant impact on ATC and whether

posting this information on the RIN would

cause any confidentiality concerns.

Question 19. Since many system elements

can impact the ATC of a path, how should

‘‘significant and direct impact’’ be defined? Is

it acceptable to limit the additional

information to those system elements for

which nomograms, derating tables, and

operating guides have been developed?

Question 20. Are there any difficulties,

technical or otherwise, associated with

posting actual path flows on the RIN?

The ATC of some transmission paths

is a function of run status and/or

megawatt output of certain generators.

For example, the Southern California

Import Transmission Nomogram is

affected by the run status of units in the

Palo Verde Generation Complex. When

one or more of the Palo Verde units are

not on line, the nomogram is reduced by

several hundred megawatts.21

Question 21. In cases where ATC of a path

is a function of run status of one or more

generators, is it sufficient to post the

expected amount and date of changes to ATC

on the RIN, corresponding to the planned

outage or return dates of generators?

Question 22. If operating guides,

nomograms, operating studies, and similar

information are to be made available on the

RIN for download, would it be logical to

expect that transmission customers will be

able to deduce the run status of those

generators which significantly and directly

impact ATC by observing the changes to

ATC?

Far-Term Transmission Information

The What Report proposes that for

‘‘far-term’’ transmission service (over

one year), firm service (non-recallable)

ATC should be posted ‘‘seasonal[ly], by

year, for years 1–10 (as available).’’ 22

The caveat ‘‘as available’’ suggests that

the What Group does not want utilities

to have to perform additional

transmission studies to calculate ‘‘farterm’’ ATCs beyond those done for

normal planning and special requests.

The Commission agrees with this.

However, we find the ‘‘as available’’

requirement vague. It appears to leave

the posting of this information to the

discretion of the Transmission Provider.

For clarity, the Commission proposes to

require that any planning or specifically

requested studies of the transmission

network performed by the Transmission

Provider be provided on the RIN on a

same-time basis. This would include

only those parts of customer-specific

interconnection studies that relate to

network impacts.

Question 23. The Commission requests

comments on how transmission studies

should be formatted for download from the

RIN. Should they be in free form ASCII text,

or in a word processor format, such as

WordPerfect or Word?

p. Requested Start and End Times/Dates

In the section in the What Report on

‘‘Information Provided by Transmission

Customer in Requesting Service’’, under

‘‘duration’’ the report states that ‘‘[t]his

must correspond to full clock hour

periods.’’ 23 The Commission proposes

to enhance flexibility by requiring

instead that the duration must be a

specific time as stated in the

Transmission Provider’s tariff.

q. Transaction Anonymity

The What Report raises a question

about whether individual transmission

requests and responses should be made

known only to the Transmission

Customer making the request, the

Transmission Provider to whom the

request is made and, to the extent

necessary, the affected control area

operators and/or security centers, or to

all users of the RIN on a same-time

basis. The Commission proposes to

restrict information about the request

and response process, while it is

ongoing, to those parties directly

involved.

We believe that this procedure will be

adequate because we are proposing

standards of conduct that would require

Transmission Providers to separate the

functions of their marketing employees

and their system operations employees

and that would restrict access by

wholesale marketing employees to

information available on the RIN.

Information about a completed request

and response process should be

recorded in the audit file.

r. Auditing Transmission Service

Information

The Commission proposes that RIN

audit log files 24 must be downloadable

from the RIN in a standard format and

must be retained on a rolling basis for

three years from entry on the RIN.

The Commission notes that

transmission transaction prices are to be
66192 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

25See What Report at 31–32.

26An exception would be where the

Transmission Provider offers discounts to its

merchant function or an affiliate. As noted

elsewhere, such information would need to be

posted regardless of whether an agreement to

provide transmission was reached.

27The version of this report attached to this

proposal intentionally omits Appendix C

(Workshop Participants), Appendix D (Survey

Questionnaire and Results), and Appendix F

(Correspondence with ‘‘What’’ Working Group).

The How Report, in its entirety, is posted on CIPS.

28How Report at § 2.4.1 (a).

29How Report at § 2.4.1 (f).

30 Download refers to the transfer of a file from

a RIN Node to the user’s computer system.

31How Report at § 2.4.1 (c).

32This is accomplished by transferring a file from

the user’s computer system to a RIN Node.

33The World Wide Web is a system of computer

resources that are accessed through the Internet.

A Browser is a computer program for retrieving

and reading hypermedia documents from the

WWW. A hypermedia document can contain, text,

graphics, video, sound or data. These documents

are often linked to other documents.

34How Report at § 3.2.3

35ASCII refers to the American Standard Code for

Information Interchange, a code for character

representation.

36How Report at § 3.2.6.

37How Report at § 3.2.4

38How Report at § 3.2.3 (e).

39How Report at § 2.4.1 (g).

40How Report at §§ 3.1.2 (c) and 3.2.2.

included in the information in the audit

file proposed in the What Report.25 We

do not consider price information

concerning cost-based transmission

services to be commercially sensitive.

With respect to information concerning

negotiations on transmission requests,

we propose that such information not be

posted unless an agreement to provide

the transmission is reached.26 This

information is to be available only in the

audit file. In addition, if an agreement

is reached, we propose that the identity

of parties to transmission transactions

be masked until a standard release

period elapses. This release period

should be a standard period after which

it is commonly recognized that most

information is no longer commercially

sensitive. The Commission proposes

that a reasonable standard release

period is 30 days after the date when the

Transmission Provider’s ATC was

adjusted in response to the transaction;

after that date all transaction data will

be made available.

Question 24. The Commission requests

comment on what information should be

considered commercially sensitive, the 30-

day release period proposal, and on how and

when commercially sensitive information

should be released to concerned parties

before the standard release period. Should

affiliated transactions be treated differently?

D. Technical Issues Concerning the

Development and Implementation of

RINS

1. Summary of the ‘‘How’’ Working

Group Report

After a review of the process used by

the ‘‘how’’ working group (How Group)

in formulating its views, and after

consideration of the Group’s efforts to

invite input from a broad spectrum of

industry segments, the Commission is

satisfied that the How Group conducted

its process in an inclusive and open

manner. The How Group report (How

Report) represents a broad agreement

among all segments of the electric

power industry. It presents the agreed

minimum requirements for computer

systems and associated communications

facilities needed by public utilities to

provide comparable access to

transmission and ancillary services

information by all wholesale

transmission users.27

The How Group proposes a two-phase

approach. It believes that the Phase I

implementation provides the

information needed for the

Commission’s open access program and

works well enough to communicate this

information to customers. Under the

How Group proposal, RINs would

become fully functional in Phase II. The

How Report recommends that Phase II

requirements be implemented 24

months after the effective date of the

final rule establishing Phase I RIN

requirements.

a. Phase I Recommendations

The How Group proposes that the

required transmission service

information be posted on RINs operated

by the transmission-owning public

utility, jointly with other utilities, or by

a third party.28 Each RIN

implementation, whether on behalf of a

single entity or a group of utilities, is

referred to as a Node. A RIN operated

jointly by several utilities would be

considered one Node. RIN Nodes must

be accessible through the Internet. By

connecting each Node through the

Internet, transmission service

information from each utility becomes

part of a network. With a single Internet

connection, customers would be able to

access information from any utility and

would even be able to display

information from several Nodes at the

same time.29

Nodes must support the use of

Internet tools. These inexpensive,

widely available, and well-tested tools

will permit customers to access RIN

information easily and to download 30 it

to available desk-top database programs,

spreadsheets, and other applications.31

Customers would also be able to

upload 32 information to RIN Nodes.

The specific tools for doing so are

described in Appendix B.

RIN users would access Nodes using

World Wide Web (WWW) browsers.33

Each Node would display information

using the HTML protocol required by

World Wide Web browsers. Screen

displays would consist of a series of

pages that may be viewed by customers

without requiring them to download the

pages.34 Under the standards that will

accompany issuance of a final rule on

RINs, the information on each page, but

not the actual displays, must be

standardized. Information would also be

required to be made available for

downloading, in a standardized ASCII 35

format, using the Internet’s File Transfer

Protocol (FTP).

In Phase I, customers would be able

to use the RIN to purchase transmission

from public utilities. They would be

able to request capacity either by

completing a standardized form

contained in an on-line HTML page or

by uploading a filled-out form using

FTP.36 Customers who want to resell

transmission capacity would upload

(post) the relevant information to the

same RIN Node used by the primary

provider from whom they purchased the

ATC.37 Customers would also be able to

upload Want Ads containing such

information as requests to purchase

transmission capacity.38

In Phase I, transmission-owning

public utilities may, but would not be

required to, provide private connections

at the request of a customer. These

connections could include leased-lines

or connections to a private network.

These connections would have to use

the same Internet tools as are required

for the Internet connection.39 Customers

would pay for the cost of the

connections. If a connection is made for

one customer, the same type of private

connection must be made available to

all customers in a comparable manner.

In Phase II, utilities would be required

to provide these connections.

The How Report proposes that

utilities may provide value-added

services for a fee on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis. Such services

would include notifying customers of

changes in available capacity, beyond

simply posting a notice of the change.40

The How Group developed a model of

the information requirements that the

What Group identified as needed for

comparable access. For Phase I, the

model specifies the information that

must be available at each RIN Node,

how the information may be requested

and the layout of the information

received by customers. Customers

would be limited to obtaining
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66193

41How Report at § 3.2.1.

42A firewall increases security by blocking access

to certain services on a private network from the

Internet.

43How Report at § 2.4.2.

44The Report refers to Buy/Sell transactions. As

used in the Report, the term refers to a request to

purchase transmission capacity and the response to

the request. The reader of the How Report should

substitute Purchase request/Response for buy/sell

whenever it is encountered.

45See Order No. 563, Standards for Electronic

Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 284 of the

Commission’s Regulations, Final Rule, III FERC

Stats. & Regs. ¶30,988 (1993); Order 563–A, Order

on Reh’g, III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,994 (1994);

Order 563–B, Order Denying Reh’g, 68 FERC

Continued

information from HTML text displays

and selecting from menus of

downloadable files. Customers would

receive the information either as HTML

pages or as ASCII files in a

predetermined form and layout.

The information model for Phase II,

while not fully specified, would provide

customers with much more flexibility in

requesting and receiving information.

Customers would be able to make

complex queries of a data base and

specify the order in which the

information will be received.

For security purposes, and as an aid

in auditing performance and

transactions, customers would be

required to register with the

transmission-owning utility or its agent

before they are permitted access to the

utility’s transmission service

information on the RIN.41

The How Report provides a number of

performance standards and a limited set

of security precautions. Performance

requirements include sizing RIN Nodes

to handle the loading of registered

subscribers, responding to subscriber

requests, backing up the system, and

other areas that are necessary for the

system to function as desired. Security

precautions include firewalls 42 between

computer systems and the Internet, the

use of passwords, the use of data

encryption for uploads of sensitive or

confidential information, and the use of

ASCII text for uploads of other

information.

b. Phase II Requirements

The specifications for Phase II are less

detailed than those for Phase I, but the

How Group anticipates that Phase II

RINs would be an upgrade of Phase I

and would not make Phase I

investments obsolete. Phase I is

envisioned as a prototype for Phase II.

Once Phase I becomes operational, the

full information and functional

requirements needed to support open

access transmission service will become

clearer. The How Report recommends

the formation of a RIN Management

Organization to develop Phase II

standards for submission to the

Commission. The How Group proposes

that Phase II be implemented two years

after issuance of the final rule on Phase

I RIN requirements.

The How Group foresees the need for

several key additional requirements in

Phase II.43 In Phase II, they foresee that

RIN Nodes must provide connections to

private networks if requested by a

customer, for a negotiated cost-based

fee, whereas in Phase I public utilities

would not be required to make these

connections. In Phase II, RIN Nodes

would have to offer the capability of

informing customers immediately when

information of interest to them is

changed by the provider. RIN Nodes

would be required to support search and

select tools to access information in RIN

Node data bases, and to meet a more

complete set of performance

requirements.

In Phase II, the information model

would change, although the information

in the data base would be the same.

Customers would be able to receive

information by querying a data base.

The information would no longer be

received in a predetermined fixed

layout. Customers would be able to

specify the exact information they want

to receive and the layout they want to

receive it in. For example, customers

would be able to request available

capacity by quantity of capacity, point

of delivery, date of availability, and

have it sorted by the name of the

transmission-owning public utility. The

customer also would be able to define

the order in which the information is

received in the file.

2. Discussion

The How Group assumed the task of

specifying, in a very short period of

time, a RIN that would meet the

Commission’s requirement for customer

access to information about

transmission services. It developed a

proposed solution that places the RIN of

each transmission-owning public utility

on a network that can be accessed by all

customers, using inexpensive tools with

a single connection, with what the

group believes to be a reasonable cost to

both utilities and customers, sufficient

security, and sufficient response time.

The proposal to use the Internet to tie

RIN Nodes together appears to be an

inexpensive way for customers to access

transmission services information and

for transmission-owning public utilities

to provide it to them.

The Commission proposes to adopt

the proposals contained in the How

Report, with the exceptions discussed

below.44 Except where noted, the issues

discussed are Phase I issues.

a. Phasing

Because of the complexity of building

RINs, and the need to begin the

Commission’s transmission open access

program promptly, the Commission

agrees with the How Report that a

phased approach to implementation is

warranted. The Commission proposes to

require Phase I implementation as of the

effective date of a final rule on nondiscriminatory open access transmission

and stranded costs.

At How Group meetings, many

transmission-owning public utilities

expressed the view that implementing

Phase I within 90 days of the date of a

final RIN Rule may not allow sufficient

time to design, build, and test RINs. The

How Report notes that a large risk exists

that many RINs will not be fully

functioning at that time. These

transmission-owning public utilities

request that the Commission permit a

six-month implementation period.

Question 25. The Commission requests

comments on how long the implementation

schedule should be for Phase I.

Phase I would provide a good first

step toward ensuring that sufficient

information is available to utility

customers to achieve the Commission’s

goal of comparable access to

transmission information. It would not,

however, provide all of the performance

requirements or information needed for

a long-term open access RIN.

Phase II would provide for more

expanded services. The How Report

addresses Phase II issues, but does not

fully specify them. It proposes that

Phase II be implemented within two

years of a final rule on RINs. The

Commission believes that the need for

the additional functions and

performance requirements proposed for

Phase II requires expeditious

implementation. Accordingly, the

Commission requests that the industry

continue the process of developing

standards, and provide a consensus

report to the Commission on Phase II

recommendations by no later than

January 1, 1997. We anticipate that this

report would be the basis of

supplemental RIN proceedings to

implement Phase II RIN requirements.

b. Standards Issues

Based on our experience with

implementing standards for natural gas

pipeline electronic bulletin boards,45 a
66194 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

¶ 61,002 (1994); Order 563–C, Order Accepting

Modifications, 68 FERC ¶ 61,362 (1994); Order 563–

D, Order Accepting Modifications, 69 FERC

¶ 61,418 (1994); Order 563–E, Order Granting

Clarification, 70 FERC ¶ 61,188 (1995).

46How Report at § 3.4.3.

47A bit is the smallest unit of computer data and

can have a value of zero or one. A byte is eight bits

and is often used to represent a character of text.

48 DUNS numbers refer to the Data Universal

Numbering System, maintained by Dun and

Bradstreet.

49See Standardized Data Sets and

Communication Protocols for Electronic Bulletin

Boards in Docket No. RM93–4, Order 563(a), supra

n.45, Reg. Preambles at 31,034.

50See Order 563(c), supra n.45, 68 FERC at

62,462–65.

major concern of the Commission is that

the proposed standards be sufficiently

unambiguous to provide consistent

implementation of the standards on

every RIN Node. Customers and other

users of RINs should be able to use the

same software to access all RIN Nodes

and should be able to expect that

procedures and data definitions will be

the same on all Nodes. The Commission

must ensure that every RIN Node would

be presenting information that would be

clearly understood.

i. Phase I Data Definitions for HTML

Pages and File Transfers

The information model, data

dictionary and various templates

appearing in the How Report specify the

name, definition and format of the data

items to be communicated on the RIN.

They are intended to be the basis for the

standards specifying file uploads and

downloads and HTML displays.

Because of the importance of these

standards to the usability and

uniformity of RINs, the Commission

must ensure that downloadable and

uploadable files will have the same

unambiguous structure, field formats,

units and definitions, etc., no matter

which RIN Node they come from or go

to. The Commission is similarly

concerned that all WWW page displays,

while not necessarily having the same

appearance, contain the same

information and use the same

definitions, etc.

Question 26. Does the How Report define

HTML displays and downloadable files with

sufficient clarity to permit public utilities to

implement Phase I such that the downloaded

files and HTML displays received by

customers from each RIN have the same

definitions, etc.? If not, what clarifications

are needed? Similarly, are uploaded files

sufficiently defined in the How Report?

With these goals in mind, the

Commission has compiled a series of

templates (tables) that show in one

place the specifications that appear in

various sections of the How Report. The

templates contained in Appendix ‘‘C,’’

are intended to help produce a

consistent implementation of RIN

requirements and highlight problems

that could hinder consistent

implementation of RIN standards.

In Appendix ‘‘C’’, the Commission

proposes to make changes to certain

definitions, data formats, and

specifications appearing in the How

Report.

Question 27. The Commission invites

comment on the issues discussed in

Appendix ‘‘C’’.

The Commission proposes to add a

price field to the templates that would

specify available capacity and those

templates associated with the purchase

of capacity. The price field would allow

primary providers to offer capacity to

buyers at a discount. The price field in

the available capacity templates would

contain the initially offered price,

whether this is the tariff price or a

discount. Adding the price field to the

templates for the purchase of capacity

would allow buyers to offer a price for

capacity below the posted price. Further

discounts from any posted offered price

could be negotiated. The price field in

the purchase of capacity templates

would permit customers to offer a price

different than the offering price.

ii. Internet Browsers

There are a large number of Internet

browsers available commercially and in

the public domain. The How Report

proposes that browsers support ‘‘at

least’’ HTML version 3 and ‘‘optionally’’

support Secure Sockets Layer. The

HTML standards used by browsers

change from time to time, and, in

addition, various browsers can support

different extensions to the standards.

The Commission does not want to stifle

innovation, but at the same time it does

not want chaos on the RIN. The

Commission does not want customers to

be forced to use different browsers for

different RIN Nodes. The Commission

wants to ensure that a customer will be

able to choose a browser and use it to

access all RIN Nodes.

Question 28. The Commission requests

comments on how to ensure that a customer

will be able to choose a browser and use it

to access all RIN Nodes.

iii. Bandwidth of Node Connections to

the Internet

The How Report proposes a formula

to calculate the minimum bandwidth

connection between a RIN Node and the

Internet using the criteria of customers

receiving data at the rate of 8,000 bits

per second.46 This speed may be

adequate for customers reading HTML

pages, which are about 8,000 bits in

size, but it might be too slow for

customers downloading many 100,000

byte files.47 Eight thousand bits per

second is much slower than the 28,800

bit per second telephone connections

many private individuals use to connect

to the Internet. Electric utilities will

likely have even faster direct

connections to the Internet. The

Commission is concerned that the basis

for the calculation in the Report will

lead to connections that are too slow

and proposes to use 28,800 bits per

second instead of 8,000 bits per second

in the bandwidth formula.

Question 29. The Commission requests

comments on the use of 28,800 bits per

second in the calculation of the minimum

bandwidth connection between a RIN Node

and the Internet in the formula appearing in

the How Report.

iv. Common Codes

The How Report does not address a

standardized method of uniquely

identifying transmission-owning public

utilities and customers, nor does it

address a standardized method of

identifying facilities.

(1) Company Codes

The Commission’s experience with

implementing standards for file

transfers and electronic bulletin boards

in the natural gas industry shows that

the use of a common system of

identifying companies enhances the

efficiency of data transfers. The

Commission is satisfied with the results

of using DUNS numbers 48 as the

standard to uniquely identify pipelines

and shippers in the natural gas

transactions.49 The Commission

proposes to require the use of DUNS

numbers to identify transmissionowning utilities and customers on RIN

Nodes.

Question 30. The Commission requests

comments on the use of DUNs numbers to

identify RIN participants.

(2) Common Location Codes

The Commission’s experience in the

natural gas industry also demonstrates

that a common method of uniquely

identifying location points will be

needed to facilitate movement of power

across the grid. The natural gas industry

uses a sophisticated system of ‘‘smart’’

codes (PI–GRID Codes), developed by

the Petroleum Information Corporation.

This coding system uses ‘‘smart’’ codes,

which identify each transaction point by

such items as state, county, latitude,

longitude and type of facility.50 Thus,

the code will tell RIN users where a

posted receipt, delivery point or path is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66195

51How Report at § 3.3.8 (c).

52How Report at § 3.3.8.

53How Report at §§ 3.2.1 (b)-(f).

54 cf. 16 U.S.C. 824l.

55How Report at § 3.1.2 (f). 56Supra at 40–60.

located, the function it performs, and

whether there are multiple facilities at

that location. The Commission proposes

to use a smart code system to identify

location, including paths, on the electric

transmission grid.

Question 31. The Commission requests

comments on how to develop common

location codes for the electric power

industry.

v. Data Compression Standards

The How Report recommends that

RINs support data compression of

downloadable and uploaded files, using

standard, commonly available

compression applications.51 The

Commission believes that data

compression will speed up the

transmission of files. However, it

believes communication of the RIN

information would be enhanced if every

RIN Node used the same compression

techniques.

Question 32. The Commission requests

comments on what data compression

technique or techniques should be made

standard for all RIN Nodes.

vi. Templates for Upload and Download

Header Information

The How Report does not completely

specify how to use the upload and

download header templates in Phase I.52

The templates require a series of header

fields specifying such information as:

(1) who is sending the data; (2) the kind

of data, such as Provider Hourly

Capacity Available for Purchase; (3) the

column headings of the data; and (4) the

number of rows of data. This header

information is followed by rows of

actual data. The discussion of the

template does not specify delimiters

between rows of data. The result would

be that an entire file of Provider Hourly

Capacity Available for Purchase

downloaded from a RIN Node would be

received as one long record. However,

customers downloading data into

personal computer spreadsheets may

have trouble using the information since

spreadsheets cannot handle very long

records. To remedy the problem the

Commission proposes to require, at least

for Phase I, the sending RIN Node to

separate each row of data with carriage

return and line feed characters.

Similarly, customers uploading data to

a RIN node would separate each row of

data with carriage return and line feed

characters.

Question 33. The Commission requests

comments on whether the upload and

download templates are sufficiently specified

to be functional and whether they are

sufficiently specified to permit all RIN Nodes

to implement them in the same way.

c. Costs

Transmission-owning public utilities

will be entitled to recover reasonable

expenses associated with developing

and running RINs. The costs of

developing and operating the system

will generally be fixed and not

attributable to individual users. The

Commission, therefore, proposes to roll

these costs into wholesale transmission

rates. The Commission also proposes to

permit costs that can be identified as

dependent on usage to be charged as

usage fees to individual customers.

Question 34. The Commission requests

comments on whether it should allow the

recovery of reasonable expenses associated

with developing and running RINs by rolling

these costs into wholesale transmission rates.

How should fees associated with RIN usage

be calculated and recovered?

d. Access to RIN Information by the

Public

The Commission believes that the

registration procedures described in the

How Report are useful security tools.53

The Commission also believes that the

Commission, state regulators, and the

public should have access to

transmission services information

consistent with the need to maintain the

security of the system.54 The

Commission, therefore, proposes that

once Commission Staff and members of

the general public have complied with

the requisite registration procedures,

they be granted ‘‘read only’’ access to

RINs.

e. The Number of RIN Nodes

The How Report does not put a limit

on the number of RIN Nodes, but raises

the issue of how many RIN Nodes there

should be.55 Public utilities would be

permitted to combine the function of

their RINs into a single Node.

Consequently, there could be as many

Nodes as there are transmission-owning

public utilities or only a very small

number of Nodes. The How Group sees

merit in a small number of Nodes and

goes on to suggest a small number of

Nodes be actively encouraged in order

to minimize the networking

management requirements for the RIN

and to help ensure seamlessness of

access. On the other hand, it recognizes

that the advantages of a small number

of separate Nodes must be weighed

against the complexity and size that

each Node would have to be to handle

the correspondingly large number of

transmission-owning utilities.

Question 35. The Commission requests

comments on whether it should encourage a

small number of RIN Nodes.

f. Connections to Third Party Networks

The How Group proposes, in Phase I,

to permit transmission owning utilities

to provide connections to private

networks, if requested to do so. In Phase

II, the How Group proposes that public

utilities be required to provide these

connections. It proposes that customers

be required to pay the cost of the

connections and the connections would

be required to use the same Internet

tools as are required for the Internet

connections.

The Commission believes that private

networks and third party services can

provide valuable contributions to the

successful operation of RINs. The

Commission, therefore, proposes to

require utilities to provide private

connections in Phase I. As proposed by

the How Group, the cost of the

connections would be paid for by the

customers making the requests and the

networks would be required to use

Internet tools.

Question 36. The Commission requests

comments on whether transmission owning

utilities should be required, in Phase I, to

provide connections to private networks.

g. Unresolved Issues

The How Group was unable to resolve

a number of issues. Many of them

concern issues covered by the What

Group and are discussed elsewhere.56

The Commission requests comments on

the following unresolved issues.

i. Price Discrimination Issues

The How Report would permit public

utilities to offer value-added RIN

services above the basic level of service.

The Commission proposes to allow

these services. However, such services

would remain cost based until the

Commission is satisfied that marketbased (value added) rates should be

allowed for such services. Requests for

market-based rates for such services will

be addressed, initially, on a case-by-case

basis.

Some customers are concerned that

price could be used to discriminate

between customers if public utilities are

permitted to charge for different

optional services, such as higher speed

connections, value-added services, and

automatic notification of changed data.

If public utilities charge relatively high

prices for these additional services, then

some customers may not be able to

afford them. These customers fear, for

example, that they could be effectively
66196 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

57How Report at § 6.6.

58How Report at § 3.2.4.

59See 18 CFR Part 161. See also the primary

Commission orders addressing natural gas pipeline

marketing affiliate regulation, and the other cases

cited therein: Order No. 497, 53 FR 22,139 (June 14,

1988), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,820 (1988); Order

No. 497–A, order on rehearing, 54 FR 52,781

(December 22, 1989), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶

30,868 (1989); Order Nos. 566, 59 FR 32,885 (June

27, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,997 (1994);

Order No. 566–A, order on rehearing, 59 FR 52,896

(October 20, 1994), 69 FERC ¶ 61,044 (1994); Order

No. 566–B, order on rehearing, 59 FR 65,707

(December 21, 1994), 69 FERC ¶ 61,334 (1994);

appeal docketed, Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, D.C. Cir.

No. 94–1745 (December 13, 1994).

locked out of the transmission market if

they could rarely get timely access to

the queue for purchasing transmission

access.

These customers felt that the

Commission should monitor and

possibly regulate the prices charged for

the services to ensure that they were

non-discriminatory.

ii. Transmission Services Information

Timing Requirements

The How Group proposes several

timing requirements for posting

transmission service information and

suggests that the requirements be

reviewed for reasonableness, possibly

during Phase I. The Commission

believes that some timing requirements

should be operative during Phase I.

Question 37. The Commission requests

comments on whether the following How

Group Proposals are adequate:

(1) Transmission Service Information

Availability: The most recent Provider

transmission service information, including

updates reflecting power system changes,

shall be available to all Customers within 5

minutes of its scheduled posting time at least

98 percent of the time. The remaining 2

percent of the time the transmission service

information shall be available within 10

minutes of its scheduled posting time;

(2) Notification of Posted or Changed

Transmission Service Information:

Notification of transmission service

information posted or changed by a Provider

shall be made available within 60 seconds to

all subscribed Customers who are currently

connected; and

(3) Acknowledgment by the Transmission

Service Information Provider:

Acknowledgment by the transmission service

information provider of the receipt of

Customer purchase request/response requests

shall occur within 1 minute for Phase I. The

actual negotiations and agreements on

purchase request/response requests do not

have time constraints. For Phase II,

acknowledgment shall occur within 30

seconds.

iii. The Posting of Capacity Available for

Resale

The How Report also raises issues

concerning posting of capacity to be

resold.57 The report requires the reseller

to post the relevant information on the

Node of the facility owner.58

The Commission is concerned that

unless primary capacity and secondary

capacity appear in the same location on

the Node and require the same forms to

be filled out and the same procedures

followed, the capacity for sale by the

facility owner will be easier to find and

purchase, thereby giving the facility

owner a competitive advantage.

Therefore, the Commission proposes

that secondary capacity be posted on the

same page, using the same tables as

similar capacity being sold by the

facility owner.

Question 38. The Commission requests

comments on how to redesign the download

templates in Appendix C so that primary and

secondary capacity can be offered through

downloadable files that have the same

format. The Commission also requests

comments on how primary and secondary

capacity can be displayed in the same tables

on a RIN Node.

Question 39. What is the best way to

handle the purchase request and response

process when primary and secondary

capacity appear in the same RIN displays and

files?

The Commission proposes that

resellers pay the costs associated with

posting this information on the RIN.

Question 40. The Commission requests

comments on how to determine the costs

associated with posting resales on the RIN?

E. Standards of Conduct

The What Group and the How Group

both focused on the specific issues that

the participants at the Technical

Conference agreed that they should

address. Nevertheless, other important

RINS-related issues must also be

decided. One such issue is whether the

Commission needs to promulgate

generic standards of conduct for

jurisdictional utilities in the electric

industry akin to the ones that we

promulgated for the natural gas

industry,59 or whether this issue should

be decided on a case-by case basis. For

the reasons explained below, we

propose to address this issue on a

generic basis by issuing Standards of

Conduct patterned on those we

promulgated for the natural gas

industry.

As we stated in the RIN Notice,

Any requirement we establish must have

safeguards to ensure that public utilities

owning and/or controlling transmission

facilities use the same procedures and meet

the same substantive requirements when they

arrange transmission to support their

wholesale sales and purchases as are

required for third parties. Further, we expect

that each public utility (or a control area

operator acting as its agent) that provides

transmission service must, at a minimum,

give its customers electronic access in real

time to information on transmission capacity

availability, ancillary services, scheduling of

power transfers, economic dispatch, current

operating and economic conditions, system

reliability, and responses to system

conditions * * *

This means that public utilities or their

agents must give competitors and other users

of the transmission system access to the same

information available to the public utility

personnel who trade (sell or purchase) power

in the wholesale market, and at the same

time. Moreover, this information cannot be

declared privileged (and kept from

competitors) if it is available to the

company’s own employees who trade

wholesale power. Thus, if a utility wishes to

keep this information confidential, it must

assign control over this information to

employees whose duties do not involve

trading in wholesale power, and it must

implement procedures to ensure that the

traders do not get access to the information

unless and until that information becomes

public. The Commission invites parties to

comment on the best way to implement these

requirements * * *

In response to this discussion and the

accompanying request for comments,

the comments (in preparation for the

technical conference) debated how the

control room could be functionally

unbundled. Currently, marketing and

transmission functions are performed in

the same control room and sometimes

these functions are performed by the

same people. However, same-time

access to transmission information

means that, somehow, these functions

must be separated. A related matter that

we are concerned about is the potential

for informal communication among

colleagues if utility traders have

preferred access to limited access

control rooms and buildings.

In discussing this issue, the

commenters asked—how much

separation is enough? They wondered

whether the Commission would set

requirements for separating marketing

and transmission functions and, if so,

what those requirements would be.

Commenters came down on both sides

of this issue. The East Texas

Cooperatives and the Ohio PUC believe

that separation is essential. American

Electric Power points out that requiring

the transmitting utility’s marketing

personnel to use only that transmission

information posted on a RIN would be

a powerful incentive for utilities to

provide adequate disclosure on the RINs

(or else the marketing employees

couldn’t properly do their jobs). El Paso

Electric and Houston L&P are concerned

about the reliability consequences of

separating control room functions.

NYSEG and Sierra Pacific do not believe
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66197

60 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

that separating control room functions is

needed.

Additionally, this issue was renewed

by the power marketers, in the

discussion of non-consensus issues in

the What Report and in separate

comments, where they argued that a

lack of organizational separation and the

absence of formal standards of conduct

similar to those the Commission

imposed on natural gas pipelines

undermines their confidence in

functional unbundling and the RIN. In

the absence of such standards, the

marketers request that voluminous

supplemental information about

transactions be posted on the RINs.

To help ensure non-discriminatory

access to information, the Commission

believes it is appropriate to impose

standards of conduct for Transmission

Providers. Therefore, we are proposing

standards that would require

Transmission Providers to separate their

wholesale merchant functions (i.e.,

purchases or sales for resale of electric

energy in interstate commerce) from

their wholesale transmission system

operations and reliability functions, and

that would further require employees

performing merchant functions to obtain

access to information on wholesale

transmission services through the RIN,

on the same basis available to all other

RIN users.

In deciding this issue, we have been

influenced by the differing views

expressed by interested persons as to

what conduct should be deemed proper

or improper, our experience in the gas

industry, and the generic nature of these

issues. We have concluded that the

industry needs explicit guidelines on

separating transmission and power

trading functions. In formulating

proposed standards of conduct, our goal

is to prevent employees of the

Transmission Provider that perform

merchant functions from having

preferential access to any relevant

information about the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale transmission

availability and costs. In other words,

those employees should not have access

to any relevant information that is not

also available to all wholesale

transmission customers and potential

wholesale transmission customers,

regardless of whether this information is

obtained through access to the control

center, access to other locations or files,

or through informal communications.

Question 41. Are the standards of conduct

proposed herein sufficient? Should they be

modified in any way?

Question 42. In particular, if the

Commission in its final rule requires

functional unbundling of all transmission

from generation, how would these standards

of conduct need to be modified? Would any

other organizational changes need to be

made? Would any modifications be needed

with regard to ancillary services?

We note that, although formal rules

prescribing standards of conduct were

deemed necessary in the natural gas

industry, the potential for improper

communications between transmission

and trading personnel is even more of

a concern for electric utilities than for

gas pipelines. Absent divestiture,

transmission and power trading jobs

will be performed by individuals

working for the same company (or

corporate group). These tasks have

traditionally been done in the same

control room and, in some cases, are

now being performed by the same

person.

We believe that explicit guidance

would be helpful to all concerned.

Transmission Providers will have a

better idea of what conduct is

permissible and what is impermissible.

Customer complaints on preferential

access should be minimized.

Enforcement efforts by the Commission

will be easier when specific guidelines

are available. Additionally, to the extent

this standard of conduct allays concerns

about improper conduct, it could reduce

what information needs to be posted on

the RIN.

In the event that Transmission

Providers are concerned that this

proposal somehow will impede system

reliability, we invite them to articulate

their concerns in their comments by

addressing the question below.

Question 43. Would the Commission’s

proposed separation of functions jeopardize

system reliability? If so, what other

mechanism would provide wholesale

transmission customers and potential

customers with assurance that they would be

obtaining access to the same information, at

the same time, as that used by transmission

providers in making their own wholesale

transmission purchasing decisions?

F. Applicability

1. Non-Public Utility Transmission

Providers

As with the requirements in the Open

Access NOPR, the RINs requirement

applies only to public utilities. Issues

relating to potential gaps in the

provision of comparable open access to

wholesale transmission services or

access to transmission information due

to the fact that the requirements do not

apply to non-public utilities will be

addressed in the Open Access

rulemaking proceeding. Although the

RINs requirements would not apply to

non-public utilities, the Commission

expects non-public utilities to provide

comparable access to wholesale

transmission information under the

reciprocity provision in the Open

Access rule pro forma tariffs.

In this regard, we also note our

general authority under section 311 of

the Federal Power Act, 16 USC § 825j

(1994), to secure information (and

conduct appropriate investigations)

concerning, among other things, the

transmission of electric energy

throughout the United States, regardless

of whether such transmission is

otherwise subject to our jurisdiction.

Question 45. The Commission requests

comments on whether and to what extent the

Commission should exercise this statutory

authority to extend the RINs requirements to

non-public utilities that own and/or control

facilities used for the transmission of electric

energy in interstate commerce.

Question 46. Should reciprocity require

that a non-public utility (such as a co-op or

publicly-owned utility) have a RIN?

2. Public Utilities Having No

Transmission Facilities With

Commercial Value

Some public utilities claim that none

of their transmission facilities that could

be used to provide wholesale service

has commercial value that would justify

the burden and expense of developing

and maintaining a RIN. Although the

Commission would still require sametime access to wholesale transmission

and ancillary service information,

simpler means of satisfying this

requirement may be considered for

utilities with wholesale transmission of

little commercial value.

Question 47. In light of the proposal in the

How Report to use a low cost Internet-based

approach, the Commission requests specific

comments on circumstances in which the

RINs requirements are believed to be an

unnecessary burden. Are there less

burdensome ways to meet the same-time

access requirement in circumstances where

the utility’s wholesale transmission facilities

have little commercial value? What criteria

should the Commission use in determining

whether and when to relax the RINs

requirements?

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA),60 requires the Commission to

describe the impact a proposed rule

would have on small entities or to

certify that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The entities that would have to comply

with the proposed rule are public

utilities and transmitting utilities that

do not fall within RFA’s definition of
66198 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

61See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 601(6) and 15 U.S.C.

632(a).

62Regulations Implementing National

Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR

47897 (Dec. 17, 1987); 1986–90 Regs. Preambles

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (Dec. 10, 1987)

(codified at 18 CFR Part 380). 63 5 CFR 1320.11.

small entities.61 Therefore, under

section 605(b) of RFA, the Commission

hereby certifies that this proposed rule

will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on small

entities within the meaning of RFA.

Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility

analysis is required pursuant to section

603 of RFA.

V. Environmental Statement

Commission regulations require that

an environmental assessment or an

environmental impact statement be

prepared for a Commission action that

may have a significant effect on the

human environment.62 Although this

regulation does not directly affect any

physical transmission facilities, but

merely proposes the electronic posting

by computers of certain information

about transmission availability and

prices, it nevertheless is being covered

by the environmental impact statement

being prepared in the Open Access

NOPR proceeding in Docket Nos.

RM95–8–000 and RM94–7–001. Thus,

no separate environmental assessment

or environmental impact statement is

being prepared for this proposed rule.

VI. Information Collection Statement

There are approximately 328 public

utilities, including marketers and

wholesale generation entities. The

Commission estimates that

approximately 166 of these utilities own

and/or control facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce and thus are

subject to this proposal. However, since

the operation of a RIN will be closely

associated with control areas, we

assume that RINs will be developed at

the control area level and not by each

public utility that owns and/or controls

interstate transmission facilities. We

estimate, therefore, that 84 respondents

will be required to collect information.

We believe that this estimate is

conservative because some regions are

likely to develop a region-wide RIN that

will cover more than one control area.

Information Collection Statement

Title: FERC–717, Real-Time

Information Network Standards.

Action: Proposed Collection.

OMB Control No: None.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit, including small business.

Frequency of Responses: On

Occasion.

Necessity of the information: The

Notice of Proposed rulemaking solicits

public comments to respond to the

uniform requirements for a Real-time

information network (RIN) established

by the Commission to ensure

simultaneous access to information on

transmission service. The proposed

requirements were developed after

technical conferences with industry to

ensure that safeguards are installed to

provide procedures and substantive

requirements for all parties seeking

transmission service. These

requirements would support

arrangements made for wholesale sales

and purchases for third parties. Public

utilities and/or their agents would give

competitors and other users of the

transmission system access to same

information available to the public

utility personnel who initiate the

acquisition or disposition of power in

the wholesale market and at the same

time. The Commission would use the

information to monitor the networks to

ensure that potential purchasers of

transmission services obtain the services

on a non-discriminatory basis.

The Office of Management and

Budget’s (OMB) regulations,63 require

OMB to approve certain information

collection requirements imposed by

agency rule. The information collection

requirements in the proposed rule will

be reported directly to transmission

users and will be subject to subsequent

audit by the Commission. The

distribution of these data will help the

Commission carry out its

responsibilities under Part II of the FPA.

The Commission is submitting

notification of this proposed rule to

OMB. Interested persons may obtain

information on the reporting

requirements by contacting the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426

[Attention Michael Miller, Information

Services Division, (202) 208–1415], and

to the Office of Management and Budget

[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (202)

395–3087].

VII. Public Comment Procedure

This NOPR gives notice of our

intention to add Part 37 to the

Commission’s Regulations. As described

in the discussion above, under this

proposal each Transmission Provider

would be required to create and

participate in a RIN, to ensure that

potential purchasers of transmission

services have access to information to

enable them to obtain open access

transmission services on a nondiscriminatory basis from the

Transmission Provider. Additionally,

the proposal would require public

utilities to comply with standards of

conduct designed to prevent

discriminatory practices and affiliate

abuse.

Prior to taking final action on this

proposed rulemaking, we are inviting

comments from interested persons on 47

specific questions enumerated in the

body of this order (and compiled in

Attachment ‘‘1’’), on the proposed

templates in Appendix ‘‘C’’ and, more

generally, on whether the Commission

should proceed to promulgate this

proposal as a final rule. Additionally,

the Commission invites comments on

any suggested changes or modifications

to the proposal that would, in the view

of the commenter, improve the

proposal, and if so, why. Moreover, the

Commission is not intending to allow

the filing of reply comments in this

proceeding and, therefore, we also

invite parties to discuss why policy

options advocated by other parties (as

described in the comments in

preparation for the Technical

Conference, the working group reports,

and in comments in response to the

working group reports), should not be

adopted by the Commission.

The Commission invites interested

persons to submit written comments or

other information concerning this

proposed rulemaking and the issues

identified above. All comments in

response to this notice should be

submitted to the Office of Secretary,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, and should refer to Docket No.

RM95–9–000. An original and fourteen

(14) copies of such comments should be

filed with the Commission on or before

[insert date 45 days from the date of

publication in the Federal Register].

Additionally, a copy of the comments

also should be submitted to the

Commission on computer diskette in

Wordperfect 5.1 or ASCII format.

All written submissions to this NOPR

will be placed in the public file and will

be available for public inspection in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, during regular business hours.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37

Real-Time Information Networks.

By direction of the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission proposes to amend Title
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66199

18, Code of Federal Regulations, to add

a new Part 37, as set forth below.

PART 37—REAL-TIME INFORMATION

NETWORKS AND STANDARDS OF

CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES

Sec.

37.1 Applicability.

37.2 Purpose.

37.3 Definitions.

37.4 Standardization of data sets and

communication protocols.

37.5 Obligations of transmission providers.

37.6 Standards of conduct.

37.7 RIN uses.

37.8 Information requirements for

transmission service.

37.9 Information to be posted on a RIN.

37.10 Posting and updating information on

a RIN.

37.11 Posting of discounts.

37.12 Procedure for transmission providers

to respond to customer requests for

transmission service.

37.13 Communicating denials of requests

for service and curtailments.

37.14 Auditing transmission service

information.

37.15 Implementation schedule for rin

requirements; phases.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791–825r, 2601–2645;

31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.

§ 37.1 Applicability.

This part applies to any public utility

that owns and/or controls facilities used

for the transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce.

§ 37.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to ensure

that potential customers of transmission

service receive access to information

that will enable them to obtain open

access transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis from public

utilities that own and/or control

facilities used for the transmission of

wholesale electric energy in interstate

commerce. These rules require public

utilities (or their agents) to create and

operate a real-time information network

(RIN) that gives competitors and other

users of the transmission system access

to the same information available to the

public utility personnel who trade (sell

or purchase) power in the wholesale

market, and at the same time, so that

potential customers may obtain open

access transmission service that is

comparable to that provided by

transmission owning public utilities to

themselves.

§ 37.3 Definitions.

(a) Transmission Provider means any

public utility that owns and/or controls

facilities used for the transmission of

electric energy in interstate commerce.

(b) Transmission Customer means any

eligible customer (or its designated

agent) that executes a service agreement

and/or receives transmission service.

(c) Responsible Party means the

Transmission Provider or a third party

to whom the Transmission Provider has

delegated the responsibility of meeting

the requirements of this Part.

(d) Resellers means Transmission

Customers who offer to sell

transmission capability they have

purchased to other Transmission

Customers.

(e) Wholesale Merchant Function

means the sale for resale or purchase of

electric energy in interstate commerce.

(f) Affiliate means:

(1) for any non-exempt wholesale

generator public utility, another person

which controls, is controlled by, or is

under common control with such

person;

(2) for any public utility that is an

exempt wholesale generator, as defined

in section 2(a)(11) of the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 1935, as

amended.

§ 37.4 Standardization of data sets and

communication protocols.

(a) A public utility subject to this Part

must provide access on a RIN to

standardized information relevant to the

availability of transmission capability,

prices, and other information (as

described elsewhere in this Part)

pertaining to its transmission system; it

must also provide the ability to display,

download and upload the standardized

information in compliance with

standardized procedures and protocols.

(b) The standardized information,

procedures and protocols are found in

‘‘Standardized Data Sets and

Communication Protocols,’’ which can

be obtained from the Office of Public

Information, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 North Capitol Street

NE, Washington, DC 20426.

§ 37.5 Obligations of Transmission

Providers.

Each Transmission Provider is

required to provide for the operation of

a RIN, either individually or jointly with

other Transmission Providers, in

accordance with the requirements of

this Part.

§ 37.6 Standards of conduct.

A public utility subject to this Part

must conduct its business to conform

with the following standards:

(a) The employees of the public utility

that are engaged in wholesale merchant

functions (i.e., wholesale purchases and

sales for resale of electric energy in

interstate commerce) are prohibited

from also conducting transmission

system operations and/or reliability

functions. The employees of the public

utility that are engaged in merchant

functions also are prohibited from

having preferential access to the system

control center and other facilities of the

public utility that differs from the access

available to other wholesale

transmission customers or potential

wholesale transmission customers. To

the maximum extent practicable, the

employees of the public utility engaged

in transmission system operations must

function independently of the

employees engaged in wholesale

merchant functions and of the

employees of any affiliate of the public

utility. Employees are not precluded

from transferring between departments

as long as they do not conduct both

transmission system operations

functions and wholesale merchant

functions or functions on behalf of any

affiliate, and as long as these standards

of conduct are observed. Notices of any

employee transfers to or from

transmission system operations must be

posted on the RIN.

(b) When buying or selling power,

employees of the public utility that are

engaged in wholesale merchant

functions and employees of any affiliate

of the public utility must rely upon the

same information relied upon by the

public utility’s wholesale transmission

customers (i.e., the information posted

on the RIN), and must not have

preferential access to any information

about the public utility’s transmission

system that is not available to all users

of the RIN.

(c) Employees of the public utility

that are engaged in wholesale merchant

functions and employees of any affiliate

of the public utility are prohibited from

obtaining information about the public

utility’s transmission system (including

information about available

transmission capability, price,

curtailments, ancillary services, etc.)

through communications conducted off

the RIN or through access to information

not posted on the RIN.

(d) Employees of the public utility

that are engaged in transmission system

operations or reliability functions may

not disclose to employees engaged in

the wholesale merchant function or to

employees of any affiliate of the public

utility any information concerning the

public utility’s transmission system

(including information received from

non-affiliates or information about

available transmission capability, price,

curtailments, ancillary services, etc.)

through communications conducted off

the RIN or through access to information

not posted on the RIN.

(e) If a public utility employee that is

engaged in transmission system
66200 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

operations or reliability functions

provides information not contained on

the RIN to an employee of the public

utility that is engaged in the merchant

function or to an employee of an

affiliate of the public utility, the public

utility must immediately post such

information on the RIN.

(f)(1) The employees of the public

utility that are engaged in transmission

system operations must apply all tariff

provisions relating to the sale or

purchase of wholesale transmission

service in a fair and impartial manner

that treats all customers (including the

public utility’s employees conducting

wholesale merchant functions and

employees of any affiliate) alike, if these

provisions involve discretion.

(2) The public utility must keep a log,

available for after-the-fact Commission

audit, detailing the circumstances and

manner in which it exercised its

discretion under any terms of the tariff.

(g) The employees of the public utility

that are engaged in transmission system

operations must strictly enforce all tariff

provisions relating to the sale or

purchase of wholesale transmission

service, if these provisions do not

provide for the use of discretion.

(h) The public utility may not,

through its tariffs or otherwise, give

preference to wholesale purchases or

sales made for itself or any affiliate over

the interests of any other wholesale

customer in matters relating to the sale

or purchase of transmission service

(including issues of price, curtailments,

scheduling, priority, etc.).

(i) If the public utility offers discounts

to purchases made for itself or for any

affiliate, then it must, at the same time,

offer on the RIN comparable discounts

for similar service to all transmission

customers.

(j) A public utility must maintain its

books of account and records separately

from those of its affiliates.

(k) Within 60 days of publication of

the final rule in the Federal Register,

the public utility must file with the

Commission procedures that will enable

customers and the Commission to

determine that the public utility is in

compliance with the requirements in

this section.

§ 37.7 RIN uses.

The information posted on the RIN

must allow transmission customers to:

(a) make requests for transmission

services offered by Transmission

Providers and the secondary market;

(b) view and download in standard

formats, using standard protocols,

necessary information regarding the

transmission system to enable prudent

business decision making;

(c) post, view, upload and download

information regarding available

products and desired services;

(d) clearly identify the degree to

which their transmission service

requests and/or schedules were denied

or curtailed relative to those of their

competitors; and

(e) obtain access in electronic format

information to support available

transmission capability calculations and

historical transmission service requests

and schedules for various audit

purposes.

§ 37.8 Information requirements for

transmission service.

(a) The RIN must support the posting

of available transmission capability and

the processing of requests electronically.

(b) The RIN must provide a

mechanism to enable Transmission

Providers and Customers to promptly

communicate requests and responses to

buy and sell available transmission

capability offered under the

Transmission Providers’ tariffs.

(c) For requests for transmission

service to begin more than one year

from the date of the request,

transmission studies need not be

performed to calculate ATCs, see

§ 37.9(a)(1), until a request for service is

made. However, any planning or

specifically requested studies of the

transmission network performed by the

Transmission Provider are to be

available for download on the RIN.

(This applies only to those parts of

customer-specific interconnection

studies that relate to network impacts).

§ 37.9 Information to be posted on a RIN.

(a) Five major types of information

must be posted on the RIN: (1) Available

Transfer Capability (ATC) and Total

Transfer Capability (TTC);

(2) Transmission Providers’ and

Resellers’ Transmission Service Product

Offerings and Prices;

(3) Transmission Providers’ and Third

Parties’ Ancillary Service Product

Offerings and Prices;

(4) Specific Transmission Service

Requests/Responses; and

(5) Informal Transmission

Communications.

(b) Information on ATC and TTC shall

be posted on the RIN in accordance with

the following: (1) The Transmission

Provider must inform all participants

simultaneously in the wholesale market

of the transfer capability that is

expected to be available on transmission

paths of the Transmission Provider’s

system and each paths’ total transfer

capability. The Transmission Provider

may delegate this responsibility to a

suitable third party who maintains that

Transmission Providers’ RIN, such as an

Independent System Operator, a

Regional Transmission Group, or a

Regional Reliability Council.

(2) The ATC/TTC shall be calculated

by the Responsible Party (the

Transmission Provider or its designated

agent) according to consistently applied

industry practices, standards and

criteria, or criteria referenced in the

Transmission Provider’s transmission

tariff.

(3) The amount of ATC posted shall

be that amount that the Responsible

Party expects, in good faith, to be

available on a specific interface or Path

in a specific direction, based on

engineering analysis and other

information that is available to the

Responsible Party at the time of the

posting. ATCs and TTCs as required in

the Posting Schedule must be posted in

megawatts.

(4) Curtailment provisions associated

with ATC must be incorporated in the

posting and must be made available to

all Transmission Customers.

(5) Transmission tariffs provide an

application procedure for Transmission

Customers to request transmission

service. At the time of the application,

and in accordance with the provisions

of those tariffs, the Transmission

Provider (or its designated agent) must

inform the requester if the Transmission

Provider can honor the request. If not,

the Transmission Provider must provide

an explanation of additional

information that is needed to evaluate

the request, or identify prior pending

requests that prevent acceptance of the

full request, regardless of the posted

ATC/TTC values.

(6) The public utility must make all

data used to calculate ATC/TTC

publicly available. This information

must be available for download on the

RIN. The Transmission Provider must

identify in its information supporting its

ATC calculations the limiting element

and the cause of the limit (e.g., thermal,

voltage, stability). Whatever method is

used to determine capability must be

applied consistently.

(c) Information on Transmission

Providers’ and Resellers’ Transmission

Service Product Offerings and Prices

must be posted on the RIN in

accordance with the following: (1)

Transmission Providers and Resellers

must post the prices, terms and

conditions associated with the

transmission products that they offer to

Transmission Customers. Transmission

Providers must also provide a

downloadable file of their complete

tariff in the format required in the Open

Access rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66201

(2) Customers who desire to resell

capability must post the relevant

information to the same RIN node used

by the primary provider from whom the

customer purchased the transmission

capability.

(3) If the Transmission Customer

resells its rights, in whole or in part, it

must promptly notify the Transmission

Provider, or the Transmission Provider’s

agent, of the new owner of the rights,

any subdivision of these rights that may

have occurred, and any changes in the

terms and conditions of these rights,

subject to the terms and conditions of

the tariff.

(d) Information on Transmission

Providers’ and Third Parties’ Ancillary

Service Product Offerings and Prices

must be posted on the RIN in

accordance with the following: (1) To

the extent that the final Open Access

rule requires that a Transmission

Provider offer ancillary services, the

Transmission Provider will post such

offers on the RIN.

(2) Other entities offering the same

ancillary services shall have a

comparable right to post offers on the

RIN.

(e) All requests for transmission

service must be made on the RIN.

Requests for transmission service and

the responses to such requests must be

consistent with the Transmission

Provider’s tariff, the Federal Power Act,

and FERC regulations.

(f) RINs must permit the posting of

informal communications related to

transmission services. Postings made in

this section carry no obligation to

respond on the part of any market

participant. These communications

include ‘‘want ads’’ and ‘‘other

communications’’ (including using the

RIN as a conference space or to provide

messaging services between RIN users).

§ 37.10 Posting and Updating Information

on the RIN.

(a) Information about ATC/TTC

posted on the RIN must be updated

when transactions are scheduled or end

or as other system conditions change

that significantly affect TTC/ATC.

(b) Information must be posted in

accordance with the following

procedures:

(1) All information will be date/time

stamped;

(2) Firm (Non-Recallable) ATC/TTC

must be posted:

(i) 24 hours per day for the next seven

days, updating the next six days and

adding day seven at a reasonable prespecified time daily;

(ii) On-peak and off-peak each day, for

days 8–30, updating the next 29 days

and adding day 30 at a reasonable prespecified time daily;

(iii) By month, both on and off peak,

for next 12 months updating the next 11

months and adding month 12 on the

15th of each month;

(iv) Seasonal, by year, for years 1–10

(when planning and specially requested

transmission planning studies have

been done).

(3) Non-Firm (Recallable) ATC/TTC

must be posted:

(i) 24 hours per day for the next seven

days, updating the next six days and

adding day seven at a reasonable prespecified time daily;

(ii) On-peak and off-peak each day, for

days 8–30, updating the next 29 days

and adding day 30 at a reasonable prespecified time daily;

(iii) Longer term by request.

(4) Daily updates must be posted at

the same universal time for each RIN.

§ 37.11 Posting of discounts.

A public utility, within 24 hours of

agreeing to a discount (as measured

from when ATC must be adjusted in

response to the transaction), must post

on the RIN and make available for

download, information describing the

transaction (including price, quantity,

and any other relevant terms and

conditions) and shall keep such

information posted on the RIN for at

least 30 days. Thereafter, records of the

transaction must be retained and kept

available for after-the-fact Commission

audit as part of the audit log required in

section 37.14(e).

§ 37.12 Procedure for transmission

providers to respond to customer requests

for transmission service.

The following steps must be followed

in processing a transmission service

request, with the time for each step

specified in the service tariff:

(a) Requester: Submits request,

including all information, as required by

the tariff.

(b) Provider: Places request in queue

and posts applicable information to the

RIN. Posts request status and provides

time/date stamps throughout the

process.

(c) Provider: Approves or denies

request and provides reason, if denied.

Posts result to the RIN. Tenders service

offer.

(d) Requester: Accepts service or

withdraws request.

(e) Provider: If service accepted by

Customer, adjusts ATC on the RIN.

(f) Requester: Holds for scheduling,

arranges scheduling, or arranges for

resale.

§ 37.13 Communicating denials of

requests for service and curtailments.

When requests for service are denied

or transactions are curtailed, the RIN

must provide a mechanism for

Transmission Providers to communicate

to transmission customers:

(a) the reason those transactions could

not be accommodated; and

(b) the options, if any, for adjusting

operation of the system to increase

transfer capability in order to

accommodate those transactions.

§ 37.14 Auditing Transmission Service

Information.

(a) All RIN database transactions must

be automatically copied, recorded in a

log file, and date/time stamped. If there

is a question concerning a transmission

transaction, the log file may be

downloaded to identify the sequence of

events concerning the transaction.

(b) Information on scheduling

transmission service must be recorded

in a log file by the entity scheduling the

transmission service and must be

available for download on the RIN by

interested parties.

(c) Transmission Service Schedules

must be posted to the RIN within one

week of the start of the transmission

service schedule agreed upon by the

parties, unless otherwise reasonably

requested by a party with a legitimate

concern.

(d) With the exception of discounted

prices to its merchant functions or to its

affiliates, information about negotiations

for transmission do not have to be

posted on the RIN unless an agreement

for transmission is reached. If an

agreement is reached, the identity of the

parties, to a transmission transaction

may be masked for 30 days from the

date when the transaction was agreed

upon by the parties.

(e) Audit logs must be available for

download on RINs for 90 days and

retained and available upon request for

three years from the date when they are

first posted on a RIN.

§ 37.15 Implementation schedule for RIN

requirements; phases.

The RIN(s) established under this part

may be constructed in phases, with the

initial phase consisting of core

requirements and later phases

increasing the number of functions,

efficiency, and/or effectiveness of the

RIN. The first phase requirements must

be implemented as of the effective date

of the Open Access rule.

Note: The following attachment will not

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Attachment 1—(Questions for Comment)

Question 1. We seek comment on whether

to continue to call the information network
66202 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

a ‘‘RIN’’ and, if not, what name should be

used in its place.

Question 2. What issues associated with

RIN standards would have to be addressed if

in an open access transmission environment

the electric power industry transitions to

regional pricing, flow-based pricing, or other

pricing models that depart from the ‘‘contract

path’’ approach presently used for pricing

electric transmission service? How in

structuring RIN standards can the

Commission provide for this contingency?

Question 3. The Commission requests

comments on how best to post the

availability of network transmission service

on the RIN. Should Transmission Providers

be required to post conservative estimates as

a preliminary matter that could be improved

with additional study? Is there an alternative

service concept that is more suitable to

measurement than the current version of

network service?

Question 4. The Commission requests

comment on how to develop a consistent,

industry-wide method of calculating ATC/

TTC.

Question 5. The Commission requests

comments on ways to minimize the burden

of ATC calculations, while ensuring that

wholesale transmission customers have the

information they need.

Question 6. The Commission requests

comment on a standard format for electronic

submission of transmission tariffs to the

Commission.

Question 7. The Commission requests

comments on what information about

curtailments and denials of requests for

service should be communicated on a RIN.

Question 8. What specifications would be

needed for information about curtailments

and denials of requests for service to be

posted in HTML displays and what

specifications and formats would be needed

to standardize downloadable files?

Question 9. The Commission requests

comment on where on the RIN offers by other

entities to provide ancillary service should be

placed. The What Report states that these

offers should be posted in the ‘‘Informal

Transmission Communications’’ section of

the RIN. Would this place third party

providers at a disadvantage relative to the

Transmission Provider?

Question 10. The Commission requests

comments on how to determine the costs

associated with posting ancillary services on

the RIN.

Question 11. With regard to information

about offers to provide ancillary services

provided by an entity other than the

Transmission Provider, what specifications

would be needed for this information to be

posted in HTML displays and what

specifications and formats would be needed

to standardize downloadable files?

Question 12. The Commission requests

comment on whether there is any additional

information needed about ancillary services

that is not included in the list. Is any

information on the list not needed?

Question 13. The Commission requests

comment on how often ancillary services

information should be updated.

Question 14. The Commission seeks

comment on whether all transmission

discounts should be posted on the RIN, or

only those provided to the Transmission

Provider or its affiliates. Also, if discounts

are to be posted, when should this be done?

Question 15. Regarding information on

affiliate discounts, what specifications are

needed for the information to be posted in

HTML displays and what specifications and

formats are needed for the downloadable

files?

Question 16. The Commission requests

comments on how the data used in

calculating ATC should be formatted. Should

it be in free form text, predefined tables, or

comma delimited ASCII files? If in free form

text, should it be in plain ASCII text or in a

word processor format, such as WordPerfect

or Word?

Question 17. The Commission requests

comments on what is the appropriate time

delay for making supporting information on

ATC available. Should the Commission

require specific formats for ATC supporting

data? If so, what should the formats be?

Question 18. To keep the amount of

information on the RIN manageable, the

Commission requests comment on whether it

is sufficient to provide information only

about planned outages and return dates (for

both planned and forced outages) for those

system elements deemed to have a direct and

significant impact on ATC and whether

posting this information on the RIN would

cause any confidentiality concerns.

Question 19. Since many system elements

can impact the ATC of a path, how should

‘‘significant and direct impact’’ be defined? Is

it acceptable to limit the additional

information to those system elements for

which nomograms, derating tables, and

operating guides have been developed?

Question 20. Are there any difficulties,

technical or otherwise, associated with

posting actual path flows on the RIN?

Question 21. In cases where ATC of a path

is a function of run status of one or more

generators, is it sufficient to post the

expected amount and date of changes to ATC

on the RIN, corresponding to the planned

outage or return dates of generators.

Question 22. If operating guides,

nomograms, operating studies, and similar

information are to be made available on the

RIN for download, would it be logical to

expect that transmission customers will be

able to deduce the run status of those

generators which significantly and directly

impact ATC by observing the changes to

ATC?

Question 23. The Commission requests

comments on how transmission studies

should be formatted for download from the

RIN. Should they be in free form ASCII text,

or in a word processor format, such as

WordPerfect or Word?

Question 24. The Commission requests

comment on what information should be

considered commercially sensitive, the 30-

day release period proposal, and on how and

when commercially sensitive information

should be released to concerned parties

before the standard release period? Should

affiliated transactions be treated differently?

Question 25. The Commission requests

comments on how long the implementation

schedule should be for Phase I.

Question 26. Does the How Report define

HTML displays and downloadable files with

sufficient clarity to permit public utilities to

implement Phase I such that the downloaded

files and HTML displays received by

customers from each RIN have the same

definitions, etc.? If not, what clarifications

are needed? Similarly, are uploaded files

sufficiently defined in the How Report?

Question 27. The Commission invites

comment generally, on the issues discussed

in Appendix ‘‘C’’.

Question 28. The Commission requests

comments on how to ensure that a customer

will be able to choose a browser and use it

to access all RIN Nodes.

Question 29. The Commission requests

comments on the use of 28,800 bits per

second in the calculation of the minimum

bandwidth connection between a RIN Node

and the Internet in the formula appearing in

the How Report.

Question 30. The Commission requests

comments on the use of DUNs numbers to

identify RIN participants.

Question 31. The Commission requests

comments on how to develop common

location codes for the electric power

industry.

Question 32. The Commission requests

comments on what data compression

technique or techniques should be made

standard for all RIN Nodes.

Question 33. The Commission requests

comments on whether the upload and

download templates are sufficiently specified

to be functional and whether they are

sufficiently specified to permit all RIN Nodes

to implement them in the same way.

Question 34. The Commission requests

comments on whether it should allow the

recovery of reasonable expenses associated

with developing and running RINs by rolling

these costs into wholesale transmission rates.

How should fees associated with RIN usage

be calculated and recovered?

Question 35. The Commission requests

comments on whether it should encourage a

small number of RIN Nodes.

Question 36. The Commission requests

comments on whether transmission owning

utilities should be required, in Phase I, to

provide connections to private networks.

Question 37. The Commission requests

comments on whether the following How

Group Proposals are adequate:

(1) Transmission Service Information

Availability: The most recent Provider

transmission service information, including

updates reflecting power system changes,

shall be available to all Customers within 5

minutes of its scheduled posting time at least

98 percent of the time. The remaining 2

percent of the time the transmission service

information shall be available within 10

minutes of its scheduled posting time;

(2) Notification of Posted or Changed

Transmission Service Information:

Notification of transmission service

information posted or changed by a Provider

shall be made available within 60 seconds to

all subscribed Customers who are currently

connected; and

(3) Acknowledgment by the Transmission

Service Information Provider:

Acknowledgment by the transmission service
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66203

information provider of the receipt of

Customer purchase request/response requests

shall occur within 1 minute for Phase I. The

actual negotiations and agreements on

purchase request/response requests do not

have time constraints. For Phase II,

acknowledgment shall occur within 30

seconds.

Question 38. The Commission requests

comments on how to redesign the download

templates in Appeat primary and secondary

capacity can be offered through

downloadable files that have the same

format. The Commission also requests

comments on how primary and secondary

capacity can be displayed in the same tables

on a RIN Node.

Question 39. What is the best way to

handle the purchase request and response

process when primary and secondary

capacity appear in the same RIN displays and

files?

Question 40. The Commission requests

comments on how to determine the costs

associated with posting resales on the RIN?

Question 41. Are the standards of conduct

proposed herein sufficient? Should they be

modified in any way?

Question 42. In particular, if the

Commission in its final rule requires

functional unbundling of all transmission

from generation, how would these standards

of conduct need to be modified? Would any

other organizational changes need to be

made? Would any modifications be needed

with regard to ancillary services?

Question 43. Would the Commission’s

proposed separation of functions jeopardize

system reliability? If so, what other

mechanism would provide wholesale

transmission customers and potential

customers with assurance that they would be

obtaining access to the same information, at

the same time, as that used by Transmission

Providers in making their own wholesale

transmission purchasing decisions?

Question 44. Regarding information on

affiliate discounts, what specifications are

needed for the information to be posted in

HTML displays and what specifications and

formats are needed for the downloadable

files?

Question 45. The Commission requests

comments on whether and to what extent the

Commission should exercise this statutory

authority to extend the RINs requirements to

non-public utilities’ that own and/or control

facilities used for the transmission of electric

energy in interstate commerce.

Question 46. Should reciprocity require

that a non-public utility (such as a co-op or

publicly owned utility) have a RIN?

Question 47. In light of the proposal in the

How Report to use a low cost Internet-based

approach, the Commission requests specific

comments on circumstances in which the

RINs requirements are believed to be an

unnecessary burden. Are there less

burdensome ways to meet the same-time

access requirement in circumstances where

the utility’s wholesale transmission facilities

have little commercial value? What criteria

should the Commission use in determining

whether and when to relax the RINs

requirements?

[FR Doc. 95–30884 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

20 CFR Part 261

RIN 3220–AB15

Finality of Decisions Regarding

Railroad Retirement Annuities

AGENCY: Railroad Retirement Board.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Railroad Retirement

Board (Board) hereby proposes to adopt

regulations pertaining to the finality of

decisions under the Railroad Retirement

Act of 1974 (Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Secretary to the Board,

Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North

Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael C. Litt, General Attorney,

Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North

Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611,

telephone (312) 751–4929, TDD (312)

751–4701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Board’s rules and procedures regarding

the finality of decisions are presently

contained in Board Orders, which are

not readily available to the public. The

Board Order regarding finality of

decisions provides that finality of

certain decisions is based on a number

of factors; adjudication based on these

factors is difficult to administer. Also

the Board Order does not contain any

time limits on reopening.

The proposed regulation addresses

the finality of benefit decisions. This

proposed rule is similar to the

regulation of the Social Security

Administration (SSA) entitled

‘‘Reopening and Revising

Determinations and Decisions’’ (20 CFR

404.987–404.996).

Proposed § 261.1 describes who may

open a final decision issued by the

agency. Proposed § 261.2 describes

when a final decision may be reopened.

All final decisions, except decisions

awarding separation allowance lump

sum payments, may be reopened within

12 months of the date of notice of such

decision; within 3 years of the date of

notice if new and material evidence is

furnished or if there was an adjudicative

error not consistent with the evidence of

record at the time of adjudication; or at

any time under the conditions set forth

in proposed § 261.2(c).

Proposed § 261.3 provides that a

change of legal interpretation or

administrative ruling upon which a

decision was based is not a basis for

reopening.

Proposed § 261.4 provides that the

annuity beginning date will not be

changed if the annuitant was later found

to be engaged in compensated service

for an employer, as defined in part 202

of the Board’s regulations, and the

annuitant had no basis for knowing that

he was engaged in such service. This

section also provides that the award of

an annuity would not be withdrawn if

based upon incorrect records of service

where the erroneously credited service

months do not exceed 6 months and the

annuitant was not at fault in causing the

error.

Proposed § 261.5 provides that a

decision may be reopened after the 1

year and 3 year time limits set forth in

§ 261.2 of this part if the Board had

begun an investigation within those

time limits. However, if the Board does

not diligently pursue the investigation it

will not reopen the decision if the

decision was favorable to the annuitant.

Proposed §§ 261.6–261.8 are

procedural and provide that if a

decision is reopened, the annuitant will

be given notice and will have a right to

reconsideration and/or a hearing. Any

hearing shall be conducted in

accordance with part 260 of the Board’s

regulations (20 CFR part 260).

Proposed § 261.9 provides that if a

decision on a claim is reopened it may

also cause a reopening of a decision on

a previous claim based upon the same

compensation record, even though the

time limits for reopening a decision on

the first claim have passed.

Proposed § 261.10 provides that

where new evidence shows that the date

of birth used in the initial decision was

incorrect or where the record of

compensation has been changed a

decision may be revised even beyond

the time limits of § 261.2 of this part if

such reopening is favorable to the

annuitant, but any increase in benefits

payable as the result of the reopening

shall be paid prospectively only.

Finally, proposed § 261.11 provides

that the three-member Board has the

discretion to reopen or not to reopen

any decision under these regulations.

The Labor Member of the Board

dissented from the action of the majority

of the Board approving this proposed

rule. The Labor Member’s reasons for

dissenting from this action are set out

below.