[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44918-44925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20669]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM16-20-000; Order No. 837]


Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes) submitted by the North 
American Electric Reliability Corporation. The purpose of Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not 
introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk 
electric system.

DATES: This rule will become effective November 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, 
Division of Reliability Standards and Security, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8718, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb98b2aeafe58aa3a6aaaf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="06557f636228476e6b6762466063746528616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8502, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01406d606f2f53746a686f41676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b2a070a0545391e0002052b0d0e1908450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 44919]]

Order No. 837

Final Rule

(Issued September 20, 2017)

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 (Remedial Action Schemes).\1\ The North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified 
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2 for approval. The purpose of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 
is to ensure that remedial action schemes do not introduce 
unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk electric 
system. In addition, the Commission approves the associated violation 
risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and 
effective date proposed by NERC. The Commission also approves the 
retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and 
PRC-016-1 as well as NERC's request to withdraw proposed Reliability 
Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1, which are now pending 
before the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to 
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to 
Commission review and approval.\2\ Once approved, the Reliability 
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or 
by the Commission independently.\3\ In 2006, the Commission certified 
NERC as the ERO pursuant to section 215 of the FPA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. 824o(c), (d).
    \3\ Id. 824o(e).
    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062 
(ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 
61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on 
reh'g, 119 FERC ] 61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 
564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Order No. 693

    3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, 
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including 
Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Data and 
Documentation) and PRC-016-1 (Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation).\5\ 
Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 requires transmission owners, generator 
owners, and distribution providers to maintain a listing; retain 
evidence of review; and provide documentation of existing, new or 
functionally modified special protection systems.\6\ Reliability 
Standard PRC-016-1 requires transmission owners, generator owners, and 
distribution providers to provide the regional reliability organization 
with documentation, analyses and corrective action plans for 
misoperation of special protection systems.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order 
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \6\ Id. PP 1529-1533.
    \7\ Id. PP 1534-1540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that then-proposed 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability 
Standard because, while it would require regional reliability 
organizations to ensure that all special protection systems are 
properly designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated 
with other protection systems, NERC had not submitted any regional 
review procedures with the proposed Reliability Standard.\8\ Similarly, 
the Commission determined that proposed Reliability Standard PRC-013-0 
was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standard because, although it 
was intended to ensure that all special protection systems are properly 
designed, meet performance requirements, and are coordinated with other 
protection systems by requiring the regional reliability organization 
to maintain a database of information on special protection systems, 
NERC had not filed any regional procedures for maintaining the 
databases.\9\ Further, the Commission determined that proposed 
Reliability Standard PRC-014-0 was a ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability 
Standard because, while it was proposed to ensure that special 
protection systems are properly designed, meet performance 
requirements, and are coordinated with other protection systems by 
requiring the regional reliability organization to assess and document 
the operation, coordination, and compliance with NERC Reliability 
Standards and effectiveness of special protection systems at least once 
every five years, NERC had not submitted any regional procedures for 
this assessment and documentation.\10\ The Commission stated that it 
would not approve or remand proposed Reliability Standards PRC-012-0, 
PRC-013-0 or PRC-014-0 until NERC submitted the additional necessary 
information to the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. PP 1517-18, 1520. The Commission used the term ``fill-
in-the-blank'' standards to refer to proposed Reliability Standards 
that required the regional reliability organizations to develop at a 
later date criteria for use by users, owners or operators within 
each region. Id. P 297.
    \9\ Id. PP 1521, 1522, 1524.
    \10\ Id. PP 1525, 1526, 1528.
    \11\ Id. PP 1520, 1524, 1528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Remedial Action Schemes

    5. On June 23, 2016, the Commission approved NERC's revision to the 
NERC Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC 
Glossary) that redefines special protection system to have the same 
definition as remedial action scheme, effective April 1, 2017.\12\ The 
NERC Glossary defines remedial action scheme to mean:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD16-5-000 (June 
23, 2016) (delegated letter order); NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.

    A scheme designed to detect predetermined System conditions and 
automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not 
limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping 
load, or reconfiguring a System(s). [Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)] 
accomplish objectives such as:
    <bullet> Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability 
Standards;
    <bullet> Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;
    <bullet> Maintain acceptable BES voltages;
    <bullet> Maintain acceptable BES power flows;
    <bullet> Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NERC Glossary, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf; see also Revisions to Emergency Operations 
Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding 
Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of ``Remedial 
Action Scheme'' and Related Reliability Standards, Order No. 818, 
153 FERC ] 61,228, at PP 24, 31 (2015).

    The revised remedial action scheme definition also identifies 
fourteen items that do not individually constitute a remedial action 
scheme.

D. NERC Petition and Reliability Standard PRC-012-2

    6. On August 5, 2016, NERC submitted a petition seeking Commission 
approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\14\ NERC contended 
that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is just, reasonable, not unduly 
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\15\ NERC 
explained that the intent of

[[Page 44920]]

Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is to supersede ``pending'' Reliability 
Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and to retire and replace 
currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1.\16\ 
NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 represents substantial 
improvements over these Reliability Standards because it streamlines 
and consolidates existing requirements; corrects the applicability of 
previously unapproved Reliability Standards; and implements a 
continent-wide remedial action scheme review program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is not attached to this 
Final Rule. The Reliability Standard is available on the 
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM16-
20-000 and is posted on NERC's Web site, http://www.nerc.com.
    \15\ NERC Petition at 2.
    \16\ NERC noted that it submitted ``for completeness'' revised 
versions of Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-
1 in its petition to revise the definition of remedial action 
scheme, but NERC did not request Commission approval of the revised 
Reliability Standards in that proceeding. Id. at 1 n.5.
    \17\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. NERC stated that, in the United States, Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2 will apply to reliability coordinators, planning 
coordinators, and remedial action scheme-entities. Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2 defines remedial action scheme-entities to include each 
transmission owner, generation owner, or distribution provider that 
owns all or part of a remedial action scheme.
    8. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 includes nine 
requirements that combine all existing (both effective and ``pending'') 
Reliability Standards mentioned above into a single, consolidated, 
continent-wide Reliability Standard to address all aspects of remedial 
action schemes.\18\ NERC explained that all of the requirements in 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-1 except R2 are now covered in 
Requirements R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R8 of Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2.\19\ NERC maintained that Reliability Standard PRC-012-1, 
Requirement R2 is ``administrative in nature and does not contribute to 
reliability.'' \20\ NERC also stated that it established Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R9 to replace the mandate in 
Reliability Standard PRC-013-1 that responsible entities maintain a 
remedial action scheme database with pertinent technical information 
for each remedial action scheme.\21\ NERC explained that Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R4 and R6 cover the review and the 
mandate to take corrective action required by Reliability Standard PRC-
014-1.\22\ NERC stated that it integrated the performance requirements 
in Reliability Standard PRC-015-1 into Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, 
Requirements R1, R2, and R3.\23\ NERC also asserted that it integrated 
the performance requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-016-1 into 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirements R5, R6, and R7.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 3.
    \19\ Id. at 40.
    \20\ Id. at 41.
    \21\ Id. at 42.
    \22\ Id.at 43.
    \23\ Id. at 43-44.
    \24\ Id. at 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. NERC explained how the nine Requirements in Reliability Standard 
PRC- 012-2 work together and with other Reliability Standards. 
According to NERC, Requirements R1, R2, and R3, together, establish a 
process for the reliability coordinator to review new or modified 
remedial action schemes.\25\ The reliability coordinator must complete 
the review before an entity places a new or functionally modified 
remedial action scheme into service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 15-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Requirement R4 requires the planning coordinator to perform a 
periodic evaluation of each remedial action scheme within its planning 
area, at least once every five years.\26\ The evaluation must 
determine, inter alia, whether each remedial action scheme: (1) 
Mitigates the system conditions or contingencies for which it was 
designed; and (2) avoids adverse interactions with other remedial 
action scheme and protection systems. Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 
footnote 1 defines a certain subset of remedial action schemes as 
``limited impact.'' Requirement R4, Part 4.1.3 footnote 1 states: ``A 
RAS designated as limited impact cannot, by inadvertent operation or 
failure to operate, cause or contribute to BES Cascading, uncontrolled 
separation, angular instability, voltage instability, voltage collapse, 
or unacceptably damped oscillations.'' \27\ Further, Requirement R4, 
Parts 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5 provide certain exceptions to ``limited 
impact'' remedial action schemes. For example, Part 4.1.5 states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 18-22.
    \27\ Id. at 19 & n.44.

    Except for limited impact RAS, a single component failure in the 
RAS, when the RAS is intended to operate does not prevent the BES 
from meeting the same performance requirements (defined in 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or its successor) as those required 
for the events and conditions for which the RAS is designed.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 19.

    NERC explained that Requirement R4 ``does not supersede or modify 
[planning coordinator] responsibilities under Reliability Standard TPL-
001-4.'' \29\ NERC continued that even though Part 4.1.5 exempts 
``limited impact'' remedial action schemes from certain aspects of 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R4 does not exempt 
``limited impact'' remedial actions schemes from meeting each of the 
performance requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. at 28.
    \30\ Id. at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NERC stated that prior to development of Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2, two NERC Regions, the Northeast Power Coordinating Council 
(NPCC) and the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC), used their 
own remedial action scheme classification regimes to identify remedial 
action schemes that would meet criteria similar to those for remedial 
action schemes described as ``limited impact'' in Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2.\31\ NERC continued that the standard drafting team 
identified the Local Area Protection Scheme (LAPS) classification in 
WECC and the Type III classification in NPCC as consistent with the 
``limited impact'' designation.\32\ According to NERC, remedial action 
schemes implemented prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2 that have gone through the regional review processes of WECC 
or NPCC and that are classified as either a LAPS by WECC or a Type III 
by NPCC would be considered a ``limited impact'' remedial action scheme 
for purposes of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id. at 25.
    \32\ Id.at 25-26.
    \33\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Requirements R5, R6, and R7 pertain to the analysis of each 
remedial action scheme operation or misoperation.\34\ A remedial action 
scheme-entity must perform an analysis of each remedial action scheme 
operation or misoperation and provide the results to the reviewing 
reliability coordinator. Further, the remedial action scheme-entity 
must develop and submit a corrective action plan to the reviewing 
reliability coordinator after learning of a deficiency with its 
remedial action scheme, implement the corrective action plan, and 
update it as necessary. Requirement R8 requires periodic testing of 
remedial action scheme performance: Every six years for normal remedial 
action schemes and every 12 years for ``limited impact'' remedial 
action schemes.\35\ Requirement R9 requires the reliability coordinator 
to annually update its remedial action scheme database.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 29-34.
    \35\ Id. at 34-36.
    \36\ Id. at 36-38.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 44921]]

    13. NERC proposed an implementation plan that includes an effective 
date for Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 that is the first day of the 
first calendar quarter that is thirty-six months after the date that 
the Commission approves the Reliability Standard. Concurrent with the 
effective date, the implementation plan calls for the retirement of 
currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 and 
withdrawal of ``pending'' Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, 
and PRC-014-1.

E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    14. On January 19, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\37\ The 
NOPR also proposed to clarify that, consistent with NERC's 
representation in its petition, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not 
modify or supersede any system performance obligations under 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\38\ In addition, the NOPR proposed to 
approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity 
levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC.\39\ 
The NOPR further proposed to approve the withdrawal of ``pending'' 
Reliability Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and 
retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and 
PRC-016-1, as proposed by NERC.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Remedial Action Schemes Reliability Standard, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 82 FR 9702 (Jan. 19, 2017), 158 FERC ] 61,042 
(2017) (NOPR).
    \38\ NOPR, 158 FERC ] 61,042 at P 16.
    \39\ Id. P 14.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. In response to the NOPR, entities filed seven sets of comments. 
We address below the issues raised in the NOPR and comments. The 
Appendix to this Final Rule lists the entities that filed comments in 
response to the NOPR.

II. Discussion

    16. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we hereby approve 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\41\ Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 
promotes efficiency and clarity by addressing all aspects of remedial 
action schemes in a single, continent-wide Reliability Standard. 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 enhances reliability by assigning 
specific remedial action scheme responsibilities to appropriate 
functional entities. Further, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves 
reliability by establishing a centralized process to review new or 
modified remedial action schemes prior to implementation, by requiring 
periodic evaluations, tests, and operational analyses of each remedial 
action scheme, and by requiring an annual update of an area-wide 
remedial action scheme database. We determine that Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2 satisfies the relevant directives in Order No. 693 for the 
ERO to provide additional information regarding review procedures for 
remedial action schemes (then called special protection systems) and to 
establish continent-wide uniformity.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \42\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 297-298, 
1517-1520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. We also approve the associated violation risk factors and 
violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date 
proposed by NERC. In addition, we approve, upon the effective date of 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, the withdrawal of pending Reliability 
Standards PRC-012-1, PRC-013-1, and PRC-014-1 and the retirement of 
currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 due 
to their consolidation with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.

A. Impact of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 on Compliance With 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4

NOPR
    18. The NOPR sought comments on its proposal to clarify that 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 will not modify or supersede any system 
performance obligation under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. The NOPR 
also sought comments on the processes used to ensure LAPS or Type III 
remedial action schemes' compliance with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 
prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.
Comments
    19. NERC, Joint ISOs, and the EEI support the Commission's proposal 
to approve Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 with a clarification that it 
does not modify or supersede any system performance obligations under 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.\43\ NERC states that Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 merely adds design, implementation, and review 
requirements ensuring that remedial action schemes enhance reliability 
and do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability 
risks.\44\ NERC and Joint ISOs state that Reliability Standard PRC-012-
2 does not supersede or modify the system performance requirements of 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 because responsible entities must still 
assume that all remedial action schemes operate correctly, guaranteeing 
a non-consequential load loss by less than 75 MW.\45\ Joint ISOs 
believe that no clarification to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is 
necessary; but if the Commission determines that some clarification is 
necessary, the Commission may confirm that under Reliability Standard 
TPL-001-4, responsible entities can assume that all remedial action 
schemes operate as designed.\46\ EEI states that while it is unlikely 
that the exceptions in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 would be 
interpreted by industry as exempting any of the performance 
requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, EEI is supportive of 
the proposed clarification since such clarification would remove any 
ambiguity.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ NERC Comments at 4; Joint ISO Comments at 2; EEI Comments 
at 4.
    \44\ NERC Comments at 5.
    \45\ Id. at 5; Joint ISO Comments at 2.
    \46\ Joint ISO Comments at 2.
    \47\ EEI Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. NESCOE contends that, absent confirmation that Reliability 
Standard TPL-001-4 allows responsible entities to assume that all 
remedial action schemes operate properly, a clarification that 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system 
performance obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 may be 
misinterpreted by entities, requiring actions that would increase 
material costs without benefit.\48\ NESCO states that reliability gains 
must be measured against the risk and cost associated with any 
standard.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ NESCO Comments at 2.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. NERC states that LAPS in WECC and Type III remedial actions 
schemes in NPCC must be compliant with Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 
before and after the effective date of proposed Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2.\50\ According to NERC, Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 does 
not distinguish between different types of remedial action schemes or 
exempt LAPS or Type III remedial action schemes from any of the 
performance requirements.\51\ NERC and Joint ISOs state that additional 
regional controls that maintain remedial action scheme compliance with 
the performance requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 are in 
place.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ NERC Comments at 5.
    \51\ Id. at 6.
    \52\ Id.; Joint ISO Comments at 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 44922]]

    22. EEI questions the relevancy of asking the industry to comment 
on WECC LAPS or NPCC Type III remedial action schemes reclassification 
as ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes.\53\ EEI contends that 
once the Commission approves Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, WECC and 
NPCC must be compliant regardless. EEI believes that insights into 
processes ensuring compliance with Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 are 
irrelevant.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ EEI Comments at 5.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    23. We adopt our NOPR proposal and clarify that Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 does not modify or supersede any system performance 
obligations under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. We agree with and, 
thus, adopt NERC's explanation:

    Nothing in proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 or the 
designation of a RAS as ``limited impact'' exempts an entity from 
meeting its performance requirements under [Reliability Standard] 
TPL-001-4, including the requirement that Non-Consequential Load 
Loss may not exceed 75 MW for certain Category P1, P2, or P3 
contingencies, as provided in Table 1 and footnote 12 of TPL-001-4.
    In performing the assessments required pursuant to Reliability 
Standard TPL-001-4, an entity must consider all RAS, whether 
designated as ``limited impact'' or not. While Reliability Standard 
TPL-001-4, Requirement R2, Part 2.7.1 recognizes that entities may 
use a RAS as a method for meeting the performance obligations of 
Table 1, TPL-001-4 does not distinguish between different types of 
RAS. As such, entities must satisfy the performance requirements of 
TPL-001-4 considering the actions of ``limited impact'' RAS and non-
limited impact RAS alike.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NERC Comments at 5. In response to the requests by Joint 
ISOs and NESCOE for confirmation that Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 
allows responsible entities to assume that all remedial action 
schemes operate properly, the Commission declines to interpret 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 in this proceeding. However, this 
Final Rule approving Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 in no way 
modifies the requirements of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 or the 
compliance obligations associated with Reliability Standard TPL-001-
4.

    This clarification should help entities avoid confusion regarding 
compliance obligations when implementing PRC-012-2.
    24. In addition, we accept NERC's assurance that LAPS in WECC and 
Type III remedial actions schemes in NPCC must be compliant with 
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 before and after the effective date of 
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ We note that WECC's and NPCC's remedial action scheme 
criteria and associated regional terms found in the ``Technical 
Justification'' section of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 were not 
submitted for approval by NERC and as such are not part of this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definition of ``Limited Impact'' Remedial Action Schemes

NOPR
    25. The NOPR sought comment on whether NERC should define the term 
``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary.
Comments
    26. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI contend that NERC should not define 
the term ``limited impact'' remedial action scheme in the NERC 
Glossary.\57\ NERC states that it typically develops terms in the NERC 
Glossary for one of two reasons: ``(1) To establish a single meaning 
for a term or concept used across several different Reliability 
Standards or multiple times within a single Reliability Standard, or 
(2) to provide for a more readable standard by creating a shorthand 
reference to avoid unnecessary repetition.'' \58\ NERC contends that 
neither reason exists for ``limited impact'' remedial action 
schemes.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ NERC Comments at 8; Joint ISO Comments at 3; EEI at 5.
    \58\ NERC Comments at 8.
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. NERC and EEI maintain that remedial action schemes vary widely 
in complexity and impact on the bulk electric system.\60\ NERC and EEI 
explain that NERC should not define ``limited impact'' remedial action 
schemes because not all remedial action schemes impact the bulk 
electric system similarly and the diversity of remedial action schemes 
makes it difficult to establish a common definition for North 
America.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ NERC Comments at 9; EEI Comments at 5.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. NERC, Joint ISOs, and EEI assert that other comprehensive lists 
may establish a baseline definition for ``limited impact'' remedial 
action schemes.\62\ Joint ISOs note that the performance criteria 
described in Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement 4.1.3, 
footnote 1 provide an adequate level of guidance.\63\ MISO contends 
that NERC need not define ``limited impact'' remedial action scheme in 
the NERC Glossary.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ NERC Comments at 9; Joint ISO Comments at 3; EEI Comments 
at 6.
    \63\ Joint ISO Comments at 3-4.
    \64\ MISO Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Bonneville and ITC contend that NERC should define the term 
``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC 
Glossary.\65\Bonneville states that the footnote in Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 only reiterates the substantive requirements of 
``limited impact'' remedial action schemes under Requirement R4.3.1 and 
does not clarify how ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes differ 
from normal remedial action schemes.\66\ Bonneville proposes the 
following definition for ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Bonneville Comments at 2; ITC Comments at 1.
    \66\ Bonneville Comments at 2.

    A remedial action scheme whose operation or misoperation only 
affects the local area defined by the RAS-entity that owns all of 
part of the remedial action scheme and does not affect the BES of 
any adjacent Transmission Owners, Transmission Operators, Generation 
Owners, or Generation Operators.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id.

    ITC also states that the Commission should issue a directive to 
NERC to define ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes in the NERC 
Glossary.\68\ ITC states that doing so avoids confusion while ensuring 
consistency, facilitates the use of the term in other Reliability 
Standards, and enhances the overall usefulness of the NERC 
Glossary.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ ITC Comments at 1.
    \69\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    30. We determine not to require NERC to define ``limited impact'' 
remedial action schemes in the NERC Glossary. We agree with NERC, Joint 
ISOs, and EEI that a definition of ``limited impact'' remedial action 
schemes is unnecessary at this time given the diversity among the 
different types, functions, and placements of remedial action schemes 
across North America. In addition, only Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 
uses the term ``limited impact'' remedial action schemes, thus 
eliminating one of the principal reasons for normally including terms 
in the NERC Glossary (i.e., to establish a single meaning for a term or 
concept used across several different Reliability Standards). Should 
this situation change, the Commission may reconsider this 
determination.

C. Other Issues

Comments
    31. MISO contends that the Commission should not approve 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as proposed.\70\ MISO contends that 
oversight of remedial action schemes would be difficult for reliability 
coordinators and planning coordinators when remedial action schemes 
span multiple footprints.\71\ MISO also contends that Reliability 
Standard PRC-

[[Page 44923]]

012-2 creates a geographical variation in transmission system 
characteristics which result in uneven distribution of coordination 
burden and duplicative work on remedial action schemes.\72\ MISO 
contends that the planning assessment performance requirements in 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 are better placed in Reliability 
Standard TPL-001-4 to avoid redundancies.\73\ Finally, MISO proposes a 
five-year evaluation of remedial action schemes, which includes a 
renewal requirement to benefit efficient operations.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ MISO Comments at 2.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ Id. at 3.
    \73\ Id. at 4-5.
    \74\ Id. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Bonneville contends that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, 
Requirement R2 gives reliability coordinators too much time to complete 
reviews of remedial action schemes.\75\ Bonneville states that 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 provides reliability 
coordinators four calendar months to review a remedial action 
scheme.\76\ Bonneville states that in the Western Interconnection, 
these reviews are currently completed in two weeks. Bonneville 
continues that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 allows an additional 
fourteen weeks for review, which would prevent Bonneville from 
completing remedial action scheme projects in a timely manner.\77\ 
Bonneville proposes that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 
should require reliability coordinators to complete their reviews 
within four weeks.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Bonneville Comments at 2.
    \76\ Id.
    \77\ Id. at 3.
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    33. MISO's opposition to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 is largely 
based on perceived ``inefficiencies'' created by the Reliability 
Standard because it allegedly lacks regional coordination between 
reliability coordinators and planning coordinators and because of 
``redundancies'' between PRC-012-2 and Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. 
We are not persuaded that MISO's concerns justify remanding Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2. As discussed above, we determine that the 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 satisfies section 215(d)(2) of the FPA 
in that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential, and in the public interest. MISO accepts that Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 ``shifts responsibility from the eight Regional 
Reliability Organizations (RROs) to Reliability Coordinators and 
Planning Coordinators'' and MISO ``agrees that the Reliability 
Coordinators and Planning Coordinators are best positioned to perform 
review and evaluation tasks associated with RAS.'' \79\ We also note 
that other commenters, including Joint ISOs, do not share MISO's 
concerns and support approval of Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 as 
drafted.\80\ To the extent that MISO continues to believe that 
improvements should be made to Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, MISO may 
pursue any modifications through the NERC standards development 
process.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ MISO Comments at 2.
    \80\ Joint ISOs Comments at 1.
    \81\ With respect to MISO's proposal that each remedial action 
scheme be renewed every five years, NERC explained that Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R4 provides for periodic remedial 
action scheme evaluations (i.e., at least every five years) by 
planning coordinators that will result in one of three 
determinations: (1) Affirmation that the existing remedial action 
scheme is effective; (2) identification of changes needed to the 
existing remedial action scheme; or (3) justification for remedial 
action scheme retirement. NERC Petition at 21. Provided that the 
remedial action scheme is determined to be effective, is made 
effective, or retired, we see no reliability reason to direct 
inclusion of an additional renewal sub-requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. We are not persuaded by Bonneville's comments regarding the 
period that reliability coordinators have to review remedial action 
schemes. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement 
R2 establishes a comprehensive, consistent review process that includes 
a detailed checklist that reliability coordinators must use to identify 
design and implementation aspects of the remedial action schemes that 
are critical to an effective framework.\82\ NERC also stated that 
allowing four months to complete this detailed review is consistent 
with industry practice, provides adequate time for a complete review, 
and includes additional flexibility for unique or unforeseen 
circumstances.\83\ While four calendar months may be longer than what 
is typical in the Western Interconnection, we determine that NERC's 
proposal is reasonable because it provides a single, consistent, 
continent-wide timeframe for reviews. Moreover, as Bonneville 
recognizes, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2, Requirement R2 permits 
entities to use a mutually agreed upon schedule instead of the four-
month default timeline provided for in Requirement R2. Accordingly, 
Bonneville's request is denied on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ NERC Petition at 17.
    \83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    35. The collection of information addressed in this final rule is 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\84\ OMB's 
regulations require approval of certain information collection 
requirements imposed by agency rules.\85\ Upon approval of a 
collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and 
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a 
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections 
of information unless the collections of information display a valid 
OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \85\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Public Reporting Burden: The number of respondents below is 
based on an examination of the NERC compliance registry for reliability 
coordinators, planning coordinators, transmission owners, generation 
owners, and distribution providers and an estimation of how many 
entities from that registry will be affected by the proposed 
Reliability Standard. At the time of Commission review of Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2, 15 reliability coordinators, 71 planning 
coordinators, 328 transmission owners, 930 generation owners, and 367 
distribution providers in the United States were registered in the NERC 
compliance registry. However, under NERC's compliance registration 
program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these 
numbers incorporate some double counting. The Commission notes that 
many generation sites share a common generation owner.
    37. Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 are in the 
Reliability Standards approved in FERC-725A, (OMB Control No. 1902-
0244). Reliability Standards PRC-015-1 and PRC-016-1 will be retired 
when Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 becomes effective, which will 
reduce the burden in FERC-725A.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The Commission is being conservative and not subtracting 
hours at this time from FERC-725A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets forth Requirements for 
remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial action schemes do not 
introduce unintentional or unacceptable reliability risks to the bulk 
electric system and are coordinated to provide the service to the 
system as intended. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 improves upon the 
existing Reliability Standards because it removes ambiguity in NERC's 
original ``fill-in-the-blank'' Reliability Standards by assigning 
responsibility to appropriate

[[Page 44924]]

functional entities. Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 also streamlines 
and consolidates the remedial action scheme Reliability Standards into 
one clear, effective Reliability Standard under Information Collection 
FERC-725G.
    39. The following table illustrates the estimated burden to be 
applied to FERC-725G information collection.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ In the burden table, engineering is abbreviated as ``Eng.'' 
and record keeping is abbreviated as ``R.K.''

                                            FERC-725G in RM16-20-000
                        [Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of                     Average burden    Annual burden
  Requirement and respondent      Number of     responses per   Total number   hours & cost per   hours & total
    category for PRC-012-2       respondents     respondent     of responses     response \88\     annual cost
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).............  (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R1. Each RAS-entity (TO, GO,            1,595               1           1,595  (Eng.) 24 hrs.    57,420 hrs.
 DP).                                                                           ($1,543);         (38,280 Eng.,
                                                                                (R.K.) 12 hrs.    19,140 R.K.);
                                                                                ($453).           $3,183,556
                                                                                                  ($2,461,021
                                                                                                  Eng., $722,535
                                                                                                  R.K.)
R2. Each Reliability                       15               1              15  (Eng.) 16 hrs.    300 hrs. (240
 Coordinator.                                                                   ($1,029);         Eng., 60
                                                                                (R.K.) 4 hrs.     R.K.); $17,695
                                                                                ($151).           ($15,430 Eng.,
                                                                                                  $2,265 R.K.)
R4. Each Planning Coordinator              71               1              71  (Eng.) 16 hrs.    1,420 hrs.
                                                                                ($1,029);         (1,136 Eng.,
                                                                                (R.K.) 4 hrs.     284 R.K.);
                                                                                ($151).           $85,754
                                                                                                  ($73,033 Eng.,
                                                                                                  $10,721 R.K.)
R5, R6, R7, and R8. Each RAS-           1,595               1           1,595  (Eng.) 24 hrs.    57,420 hrs.
 entity (TO, GO, DP).                                                           ($1,543);         (38,280 Eng.,
                                                                                (R.K.) 12 hrs.    19,140 R.K.);
                                                                                ($453).           $3,183,556
                                                                                                  ($2,461,021
                                                                                                  Eng., $722,535
                                                                                                  R.K.)
R9. Each Reliability                       15               1              15  (Eng.) 10 hrs.    210 hrs. (150
 Coordinator.                                                                   ($653); (R.K.)    Eng., 60
                                                                                4 hrs. ($151).    R.K.); $11,909
                                                                                                  ($9,644 Eng.,
                                                                                                  $2,265 R.K.)
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ..............  ..............           3,291  ................  116,770 hrs.
                                                                                                  (78,086 Eng.,
                                                                                                  38,684 R.K.);
                                                                                                  $6,480,470
                                                                                                  ($5,020,149
                                                                                                  Eng.;
                                                                                                  $1,460,321
                                                                                                  R.K.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards); FERC-725G 
(Mandatory Reliability Standards: PRC-012-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 
following formula: Burden Hours per Response * $/hour = Cost per 
Response. The $64.29/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.75/hour 
figure for a record clerk are based on the average salary plus 
benefits data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Action: Revision to existing collections.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0244 (FERC-725A); 1902-0252 (FERC-725G).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit 
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: Annually.
    Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 sets 
forth Requirements for remedial action schemes to ensure that remedial 
action schemes do not introduce unintentional or unacceptable 
reliability risks to the bulk electric system and are coordinated to 
provide the service to the system as intended.
    Internal Review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of its 
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the 
burden estimates associated with the information requirements.
    40. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f1b3e2b3e1c333a3e2d3e313c3a1f393a2d3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="befadfcadffdd2dbdfccdfd0dddbfed8dbccdd90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>, phone: 
(202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
    41. Comments concerning the information collection in this Final 
Rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Office 
of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. 
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the 
following email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee81879c8fb19d9b8c83879d9d878180ae81838cc08b819ec0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9c6c0dbc8f6dadccbc4c0dadac0c6c7e9c6c4cb87ccc6d987cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference 
FERC-725A and FERC-725G and the docket number of this Final Rule, 
Docket No. RM16-20-000, in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    42. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\89\ The 
action proposed here falls within the categorical exclusion in the 
Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or 
procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. 
& Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \90\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    43. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires 
a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard 
PRC-012-2 will apply to approximately 1681 entities in the United 
States.\92\ The Commission did not receive any comments on the impact 
on small entities. Comparison of the applicable entities with the 
Commission's small business data indicates that approximately 1,025 are 
small entities or 61 percent of the respondents affected by proposed 
Reliability Standard PRC-012-2.\93\ The Commission estimates for these 
small entities, Reliability Standard PRC-012-2 may need to be evaluated 
and documented every five years with a cost of $6,322 for each 
evaluation. The Commission views this as a minimal economic impact for 
each entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability 
Standard PRC-012-2 will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ NOPR, 158 FERC ] 61,042 at P 26.
    \93\ The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for 
what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under 
one of several different categories, each with a size threshold 
based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates, 
the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this 
rulemaking, we apply a 500 employee threshold for each affected 
entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power 
Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 44925]]

VI. Document Availability

    45. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours 
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, 
Washington DC 20426.
    46. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    47. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e080b1c0d01000207000b1d1b1e1e011c1a2e080b1c0d40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f4f7e0f1fdfcfefbfcf7e1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202)502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e1e1b0c02070d401c0b080b1c0b000d0b1c0101032e080b1c0d40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e0e0b1c12171d500c1b181b0c1b101d1b0c1111133e181b0c1d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    48. The final rule is effective November 27, 2017. The Commission 
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being 
submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: September 20, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Appendix

Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville)
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
International Transmission Company d/b/a ITC Transmission, Michigan 
Electric Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC and ITC Great 
Plains, LLC (together, ITC)
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)
New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE)
New York Independent System Operator, Independent Electricity System 
Operator, ISO New England, Inc. and Electric Reliability Council of 
Texas, Inc. (together, Joint ISOs)
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)

[FR Doc. 2017-20669 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>