[Federal Register: August 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 52560-52562]
[DOCID:fr26au10-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62745; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-113]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Cancellation Fee

August 19, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 17, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify the
current method of calculating the minimum number of orders submitted by
a member organization and subsequently cancelled that is required to
assess a Cancellation Fee on electronically delivered Customer orders,
and Professional\3\ all-or-none (``AON'') orders that are submitted by
the member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1000(b)(14) provides in relevant part: ``The term
``professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker
or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the manner in
which the Cancellation Fee is assessed on member organizations.
Currently, the Exchange assesses the Cancellation Fee on member
organizations that submit Customer orders and Professional AON orders
if the aggregate number of Customer orders and Professional AON orders
submitted by such members and then cancelled totals 500 orders or more
in a particular calendar month (the ``500 Order Threshold'').
    The Exchange proposes to modify the calculation of the 500 Order
Threshold by creating two separate Cancellation Fee calculations, one
applicable to Customer orders and one applicable to AON orders that are
submitted by a Professional.\4\ Under the proposal, the 500 Order
Threshold would be calculated for Customer orders and Professional AON
orders separately, and would not be aggregated.\5\ The Exchange
proposes this rule change to simplify the calculation of the 500 Order
Threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, a Professional is treated in the same manner as
an off-floor broker-dealer for purposes of Rules 1014(g) (except
with respect to AON orders, which will be treated like Customer
orders), 1033(e), 1064.02 (except professional orders will be
considered Customer orders subject to facilitation), and 1080.08 as
well as Options Floor Procedure Advices B-6, B-11 and F-5. Member
organizations must indicate whether orders are for professionals.
    \5\ The Cancellation Fee [sic] to member organizations that
submit a minimum of 500 Customer orders in a given month, and to
Professionals that submit a minimum of 500 AON orders in a given
month. For purposes of assessing the Cancellation Fee, Customer or
Professional AON orders from the same member organization in the
same series on the same side of the market that are executed at the
same price within a 300 second period will be aggregated and counted
as one executed option order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange recently amended the Cancellation Fee to include
Professional AON orders in the computation of the 500 Order Threshold
for the application of the Cancellation Fee.\6\ Currently, the Exchange
assesses a Cancellation Fee of $2.10 per Customer order and $1.10 per
Professional AON order for each cancelled electronically delivered \7\
Customer order or Professional AON order that exceeds the aggregate
number of Customer and Professional AON

orders executed on the Exchange by that member organization in a given
month. The Cancellation Fee is not assessed in a month in which fewer
than 500 electronically delivered Customer or Professional AON orders
\8\ are cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-Phlx-2010-105.
    \7\ Electronically delivered orders are delivered through the
Exchange's options trading platform known as PHLX XL II.
    \8\ For purposes of assessing the Cancellation Fee, Customer or
Professional AON orders from the same member organization in the
same series on the same side of the market that are executed at the
same price within a 300 second period will be aggregated and counted
as one executed option order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, simple cancels \9\ and cancel-replacement \10\ orders are
types of orders that are counted when calculating the number of
electronically delivered orders. The following order activity is exempt
from the Cancellation Fee: (i) Pre-market cancellations; \11\ (ii)
Complex Orders \12\ that are submitted electronically; (iii) unexecuted
Immediate-or-Cancel \13\ Customer orders; and (iv) cancelled Customer
orders that improved the Exchange's prevailing bid or offer (PBBO)
market at the time the Customer orders were received by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The designation ``simple cancel'' indicates that an order is
to be cancelled.
    \10\ A cancel-replacement order is a contingency order
consisting of two or more parts which require the immediate
cancellation of a previously received order prior to the replacement
of a new order with new terms and conditions. If the previously
placed order is already filled partially or in its entirety the
replacement order is automatically canceled or reduced by such
number. See Exchange Rule 1066(c)(7).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53226 (February 3,
2006), 71 FR 7602 (February 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-92); and 53670
(April 18, 2006), 71 FR 21087 (April 24, 2006) (SR-PHLX-2006-21).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60046 (June 4, 2009),
74 FR 28083 (June 12, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-44).
    \12\ A complex order is a spread, straddle, combination, ratio
or collar order, all of which consist of more than one component,
priced like a single order at a net debit or credit based on the
prices of the individual components. See Exchange Rule 1080.08
Commentary .08(a)(i).
    \13\ An Immediate-or-Cancel (IOC) order is a limit order that is
to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so
executed shall be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Cancellation Fee to separately
compute a Customer Cancellation Fee and a Professional AON Cancellation
Fee. Each fee will be separately aggregated and each 500 Order
Threshold will be calculated separately. Therefore, a member
organization will not be assessed a fee on the first 500 cancelled
Customer orders which meet the criteria specified above for inclusion
in the Cancellation Fee. Similarly, a member organization will not be
assessed a fee on the first 500 cancelled Professional AON orders which
meet the criteria specified above for inclusion in the Cancellation
Fee. The Exchange is not amending the method by which the Cancellation
Fee is calculated; it is simply creating two separate 500 Order
Threshold calculations. This amendment allows member organizations
additional latitude in cancelling both Customer and Professional AON
orders before incurring a fee for such cancellation.
    The Exchange is also proposing to make minor technical amendments
that are grammatical in nature to the language of the Fee Schedule,
relating to the Cancellation Fee, solely for purposes of
clarification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ E-mail from Angela Saccomandi Dunn, Assistant General
Counsel, Phlx to Ronesha A. Butler, Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets dated August 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \16\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the
Cancellation Fee are reasonable because they will continue to ease
system congestion and allow the Exchange to recover costs associated
with excessive order cancellation activity. The Exchange believes that
by separately calculating Customer and Professional AON cancellations
for purposes of the Cancellation Fee will simplify the calculation of
this fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the amendment to the Cancellation Fee is
equitable because it will afford member organizations the opportunity
to cancel additional Customer and Professional AON orders before a fee
is incurred by the member organization. The Exchange would continue to
assess the Cancellation Fee only after the 500 Order Threshold is
reached for both Customer and Professional AON cancelled orders.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments:

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-113. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\19\ all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-113 and should be
submitted on or before September 16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21178 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2935-2937]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00791]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-1600]

Gabriel J. Letizia, Jr.: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permanently
debarring Gabriel J. Letizia, Jr. from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Letizia was
convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct that relates to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Mr. Letizia was given
notice of the proposed permanent debarment and was given an opportunity
to request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred within the
timeframe prescribed by regulation. Mr. Letizia has not responded to
the notice. Mr. Letizia's failure to respond and request a hearing
within the prescribed timeframe constitutes a waiver of his right to a
hearing concerning this action.

DATES: This order is applicable January 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for special termination of debarment to
the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of Compliance
and Enforcement, Office of Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement, Office
of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B))
requires

debarment of an individual from providing services in any capacity to a
person that has an approved or pending drug product application if FDA
finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal
law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under
the FD&C Act. On May 18, 2022, Mr. Letizia was convicted in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, of one felony
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371,
and two misdemeanor counts of misbranding in violation of 21 U.S.C.
331(a) and 333(a)(1). FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is
based on the felony conviction referenced herein.
    The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: As contained
in the Superseding Information in Mr. Letizia's case, filed May 4,
2021, and from the transcript of his guilty plea hearing, filed on May
26, 2021, Mr. Letizia was the owner and executive director of AMA
Laboratories (AMA), a consumer product testing company in Rockland
County, New York. Mr. Letizia began operating AMA in the early 1980s
and became its sole owner in approximately 2003. Mr. Letizia falsely
used the title ``Dr.'' in correspondence, falsely representing to
customers that he held a Ph.D. AMA purported to test the safety and
efficacy of cosmetics, sunscreens, and other products on specified
numbers of volunteer panelists for consumer products companies. AMA's
customers would use the test results to support their claims that their
products were safe, effective, hypoallergenic, or provided a certain
sun protection factor (SPF), including after exposure to water. AMA
customers that manufactured sunscreens used the test results to comply
with FDA regulations requiring sunscreen manufacturers to have their
products tested and to maintain the test results for possible review by
the FDA.
    From 1987 to April 2017, Mr. Letizia and AMA personnel operating at
Mr. Letizia's direction, defrauded AMA's customers of more than $46
million by testing products on materially lower numbers of panelists
than the numbers specified and paid for by AMA's customers. At Mr.
Letizia's direction, AMA personnel rarely tested products on the number
of panelists requested by AMA's customers and for which they had paid.
AMA's fees for tests were based, in part, on the number of panelists
that were to participate in the study. However, at Mr. Letizia's
direction AMA sent its customers fraudulent test results, via
interstate email and facsimile communications, in which AMA personnel
included fictitious data for ``phantom'' panelists who had not actually
participated in the tests. At Mr. Letizia's direction, AMA employees
had panelists who agreed to partake in studies at AMA fill out consent
forms and other paperwork as if they would be participating in all of
the studies that were being performed at AMA at that time. These
panelists were then used as ``phantom'' panelists in other studies, and
their consent forms for those studies would falsely make it appear to
those who might audit AMA's files, including FDA investigators and
AMA's customers, that the panelists had participated in studies when,
in fact, they had not. In addition, AMA customers who paid for AMA to
test their sunscreen products relied on the reliability of AMA's test
results for purposes of accurately and lawfully labeling the SPF level
of the sunscreen products those customers intended to sell. Mr. Letizia
knowingly caused AMA employees to send false reports to AMA's customers
in that testing had not been performed on the whole panel as requested
and paid for by AMA's customers. In so doing, Mr. Letizia knowingly
caused AMA's customers to market and sell to consumers in the United
States and elsewhere, sunscreen, with labels that failed to reveal
material facts in that the labels on these products stated that the SPF
level of the sunscreen was 50 with no indication on that label that the
laboratory testing of the panel paid for by AMA customers had not been
performed.
    In addition, at Mr. Letizia's direction, AMA personnel routinely
falsified test results relating to AMA's customers' products, which
included suppressing reports of adverse reactions and deviating from
testing protocols. AMA personnel reported adverse reactions to
customers only in extreme cases and often offered to retest the product
and, in some cases, change the test procedure with the hope of reducing
the number of reported negative reactions. AMA personnel also falsified
data to accord with prior results from smaller ``screener'' study
results or customer expectations.
    Based on this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Letizia by certified mail on
September 12, 2022, a notice proposing to permanently debar him from
providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or
pending drug product application. The proposal was based on a finding,
under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Mr. Letizia was
convicted, as set forth in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act, of a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a
drug product under the FD&C Act. The proposal also offered Mr. Letizia
an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the
date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised
him that failure to file a timely request for a hearing would
constitute an election not to use the opportunity for a hearing and a
waiver of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Letizia received
the proposal on September 16, 2022. He did not request a hearing within
the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his
opportunity for a hearing and any contentions concerning his debarment
(21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr.
Letizia has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Letizia is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application, effective (see DATES)
(see sections 306(a)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses in any capacity the services of Mr. Letizia during his
debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Mr. Letizia provides
services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug
product application during his period of debarment, he will be subject
to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In
addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug
application from Mr. Letizia during his period of debarment, other than
in connection with an audit under section 306 of the FD&C Act (section
306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Note that, for purposes of sections 306
and 307 of the FD&C Act, a ``drug product'' is defined as a ``drug
subject to regulation under section 505, 512, or 802 of this Act [(21
U.S.C. 355, 360b, 382)] or under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act [(42 U.S.C. 262)]'' (section 201(dd) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 321(dd))).
    Any application by Mr. Letizia for special termination of debarment
under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act) should be identified with
Docket No. FDA-2022-N-1600 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff
(see

ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these submissions
is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 11, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-00791 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15481-15485]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM16-8-000]

Requirements for Frequency and Voltage Ride Through Capability of
Small Generating Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to revise the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement
(SGIA). The pro forma SGIA establishes the terms and conditions under
which public utilities must provide interconnection service to small
generating facilities of no larger than 20 megawatts. In this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes to modify the pro forma
SGIA to require newly interconnecting small generating facilities to
ride through abnormal frequency and voltage events and not disconnect
during such events. The Commission already requires generators
interconnecting under the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement to
have this capability, and it would be unduly discriminatory not to also
impose these requirements on small generating facilities. The
Commission believes that small generating facilities should now have
ride through requirements comparable to large generating facilities.

DATES: Comments are due May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Taba (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Alan Rukin (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma Small Generator
Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) originally set forth in Order No. 2006
\1\ and revised in Order No. 792.\2\ In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission proposes to modify the pro forma SGIA
pursuant to its authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional
service remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or
preferential.\3\ The proposed modifications would require small
generating facilities interconnecting through the SGIA to ride through
abnormal frequency and voltage events and not disconnect during such
events.\4\ The Commission intends that the proposed revisions address
the Commission's concerns that it would be unduly discriminatory to
impose these requirements on large generating facilities and not small
generating facilities. The Commission believes that small generating
facilities should now have ride through requirements comparable to
large generating facilities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection
Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,180, order on reh'g, Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,196 (2005), order granting clarification, Order No. 2006-B, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,221 (2006) (Order No. 2006).
    \2\ Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures,
Order No. 792, 145 FERC ] 61,159 (2013), clarified, Order No. 792-A,
146 FERC ] 61,214 (2014) (Order No. 792).
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824e.
    \4\ In Order No. 2003, the Commission defined ``ride through''
to mean ``a Generating Facility staying connected to and
synchronized with the Transmission System during system disturbances
within a range of over- and under-frequency conditions, in
accordance with Good Utility Practice.'' Standardization of
Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146, at P 562 n.88 (2003), order on reh'g,
Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,160, order on reh'g,
Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,171 (2004), order on
reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,190 (2005), aff'd
sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d
1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1230 (2008) (Order No.
2003).
    \5\ Article 9 of the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement,
together with Reliability Standard PRC-024-2 (Generator Frequency
and Voltage Protective Relay Settings) (effective July 1, 2016),
generally require generating facilities larger than 20 MW to ride
through frequency and voltage disturbances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. The pro forma SGIA establishes the terms and conditions under
which public utilities must provide interconnection service to small
generating facilities of no larger than 20 megawatts (MW). Currently,
the pro forma SGIA does not mandate that small generating facilities
must ride through voltage or frequency disturbances.
    3. The Commission has previously evaluated whether small generating
facilities should be subject to these requirements. In Order No. 2006,
the Commission explored whether voltage ride through requirements
proposed for large wind generating facilities should apply to small
generating facilities.\6\ While a commenter asked the Commission to
implement standards for small generating facilities that are similar to
those proposed for large generating facilities, other commenters
responded that special capabilities, such as low voltage ride through,
were not needed for any small generating facility. The Commission
concluded that generating facilities interconnecting under Order No.
2006 would be small and would have minimal impact on the transmission
provider's electric system and, therefore, need not be subject to ride
through requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 24.
    \7\ Id. The penetration of small generating facilities has
increased since the Commission analyzed the impact of small
generating facilities in Order No. 2006. See infra P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Commission again addressed these requirements with regard to
small generating facilities in Order No. 792. In that proceeding, the
Commission proposed to revise section 1.5.4 of the pro forma SGIA to
address the reliability concern related to automatic disconnection of
small generating facilities during over- and under-frequency events
that could become a matter of concern at high penetrations of

distributed energy resources.\8\ The proposed revisions to section
1.5.4 would have required the interconnection customer to design,
install, maintain, and operate its small generating facility, in
accordance with the latest version of the applicable standards to
prevent automatic disconnection during over- and under-frequency
events.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 142 FERC ] 61,049, at P 46 (2013)
(Order No. 792 NOPR).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Commission declined to adopt this proposed revision in Order
No. 792.\10\ Instead, the Commission recognized that Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) was, at the time, in the
process of amending IEEE Standard 1547, which is an interconnection
standard that is referenced in the Small Generator Interconnection
Procedures.\11\ The Commission also noted that IEEE was about to begin
a full IEEE Standard 1547 revision process in 2014, where frequency and
voltage ride through requirements in the standard were to be evaluated.
The Commission concluded that it would continue to monitor the IEEE
Standard 1547 revision process and could revise the pro forma SGIA as
it relates to IEEE Standard 1547 in the future, if necessary.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Order No. 792, 145 FERC ] 61,159 at P 220.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Since the Commission issued Order No. 792, IEEE has completed a
partial revision of IEEE Standard 1547, which is IEEE Standard 1547a.
IEEE is also in the process of fully revising IEEE Standard 1547. IEEE
Standard 1547a permits generating facilities to have wider trip setting
compared with IEEE Standard 1547. However, IEEE Standard 1547a includes
permissive--and not mandatory--ride through requirements.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ IEEE Standard 1547a contains ``must trip'' requirements; it
does not have ``must ride through'' requirements. By widening the
trip settings, IEEE Standard 1547a permits generating facilities to
trip at a later time. This change effectively allows generating
facilities to ride through disturbances, but they are not required
to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Following the Commission's evaluations of the need for ride
through requirements for small generating facilities, the impact of
small generating facilities on the grid has changed, and the amount has
increased. For example, NERC has noted in multiple reports, the mix of
generation resources is changing and the high penetration of
distributed energy resources will impact the reliability of the
electric grid if sufficient care is not taken to mitigate potential
adverse impacts.\14\ NERC also has found that a lack of coordination
between small generating facilities and NERC Reliability Standards can
lead to events where system load imbalance may increase during
frequency excursions or voltage deviations due to the disconnection of
distributed energy resources, which may exacerbate a disturbance on the
Bulk-Power System.\15\ In addition, the Commission has observed the
growth in grid-connected solar photovoltaic generation since the
issuance of Order No. 2006 and the growth in small generator
interconnection requests driven by state renewable portfolio
standards.\16\ Moreover, technology now available to newly
interconnecting small generating facilities, such as smart inverters,
permits the capability to ride through frequency and voltage
disturbances.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NERC Special Report, Potential Bulk System Reliability
Impacts of Distributed Resources (Aug. 2011), http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/IVGTF_TF-1-8_Reliability-Impact-Distributed-Resources_Final-Draft_2011.pdf; see also NERC Integration of
Variable Generation Task Force Draft Report, Performance of
Distributed Energy Resources During and After System Disturbance
(Dec. 2013), http://www.nerc.com/comm/PC/Integration%20of%20Variable%20Generation%20Task%20Force%20I1/IVGTF17_PC_FinalDraft_December_clean.pdf.
    \15\ NERC, Essential Reliability Services Task Force Measures
Report, 21 (Dec. 2015), http://www.nerc.com/comm/Other/essntlrlbltysrvcstskfrcDL/ERSTF%20Framework%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf. NERC defines distributed energy resources to mean
resources that are distributed geographically and not centralized
like traditional generation resources.
    \16\ See, e.g., Order No. 792, 145 FERC ] 61,159 at P 15; Solar
Industry Data, Solar Energy Indus. Ass'n, http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data (last visited Mar. 2, 2016).
    \17\ See Electric Power Research Institute, Recommended Settings
for Voltage and Frequency Ride Through of Distributed Energy
Resources, 28-29 (May 2015), http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Disturbance Ride Through Capability Requirements

1. Need for Reform
    8. Conditions have changed since the Commission last evaluated
whether to impose ride through requirements on small generating
facilities.\18\ IEEE has revised its standards, and IEEE Standard 1547a
now provides wider trip settings that give small generating facilities
greater ability to ride through disturbances.\19\ In addition,
distributed energy resources have had an increasing presence and impact
on the electric system. The absence of ride through requirements for
small generating facilities increases the risk that an initial voltage
or frequency disturbance may cause a significant number of small
generating facilities to trip across a particular area or
Interconnection. Moreover, the Commission is concerned that small
generating facilities, in the aggregate or in significant combination,
could exacerbate an initial disturbance by tripping off-line instead of
riding through a disturbance. Large generating facilities are already
subject to ride through requirements to avoid these types of
occurrences. Given the changes in conditions described above, we now
conclude there is reason to subject small generating facilities to ride
through requirements. For these reasons, the Commission preliminarily
concludes that the lack of ride through requirements is unduly
discriminatory or preferential for small generating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission routinely evaluates the effectiveness of its
regulations and policies in light of changing industry conditions to
determine if changes in these conditions and policies are necessary.
See, e.g., Integration of Variable Energy Resources, Order No. 764,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,331 (2012).
    \19\ The reforms proposed in this proceeding are not intended to
impede ongoing work of the IEEE Standard 1547 Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The Commission acknowledges that some areas have a greater
penetration of distributed resources than others at this time.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the proposed reforms to the
pro forma SGIA are appropriate on an industry-wide basis now. The issue
regarding small generating facilities the Commission seeks to address
in this NOPR is expected to increase over time, and it is appropriate
for the Commission to act on an industry-wide basis now to ensure
effective protections and to avoid possible increased costs that may
result from applying the rule on a different basis.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Order No. 792 NOPR, 142 FERC ] 61,049 at P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission affirms that this NOPR is not intended to
interfere with state interconnection procedures or agreements in any
way. The pro forma SGIA applies only to interconnections made subject
to a jurisdictional open access transmission tariff (OATT) for the
purposes of jurisdictional wholesale sales. Similar to the approach in
Order Nos. 2006 and 792, the Commission hopes that any changes to the
pro forma SGIA resulting from this NOPR will be helpful to states when
updating their own interconnection rules, but the states are under no
obligation to adopt the provisions of the Commission's proposal.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 792, 145 FERC ] 61,159 at P 27; Order No. 2006,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,180 at P 8.

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

2. Commission Proposal
    11. The Commission proposes to revise the pro forma SGIA to include
proposed section 1.5.7, which would require interconnection customers
to ensure the frequency ride through capability and the voltage ride
through capability of small generating facilities that execute
interconnection agreements following the effective date of the proposed
section 1.5.7. Proposed section 1.5.7 would also require a small
generating facility not to disconnect automatically or instantaneously
from the system or equipment of the transmission provider and any
affected systems for an under-frequency or over-frequency condition, or
an under-voltage or over-voltage condition. In addition, the
transmission provider must coordinate the small generating facility's
protective equipment settings with any automatic load shedding program
(e.g., under frequency load shedding, under voltage load shedding).
    12. The Commission proposes to add new section 1.5.7 of the pro
forma SGIA:

    1.5.7 The Interconnection Customer shall ensure ``frequency ride
through'' capability and ``voltage ride through'' capability of its
Small Generating Facility. The Interconnection Customer shall enable
these capabilities such that its Small Generating Facility shall not
disconnect automatically or instantaneously from the system or
equipment of the Transmission Provider and any Affected Systems for
a defined under-frequency or over-frequency condition, or an under-
voltage or over-voltage condition. The defined conditions shall be
in accordance with Good Utility Practice and consistent with any
standards and guidelines that are applied to other generating
facilities in the Balancing Authority Area on a comparable basis.
The Small Generating Facility's protective equipment settings shall
comply with the Transmission Provider's automatic load-shed program.
The Transmission Provider shall review the protective equipment
settings to confirm compliance with the automatic load-shed program.
The term ``ride through'' as used herein shall mean the ability of a
Small Generating Facility to stay connected to and synchronized with
the system or equipment of the Transmission Provider and any
Affected Systems during system disturbances within a range of
conditions, in accordance with Good Utility Practice and consistent
with any standards and guidelines that are applied to other
generating facilities in the Balancing Authority on a comparable
basis. The term ``frequency ride through'' as used herein shall mean
the ability of a Small Generating Facility to stay connected to and
synchronized with the system or equipment of the Transmission
Provider and any Affected Systems during system disturbances within
a range of under-frequency and over-frequency conditions, in
accordance with Good Utility Practice and consistent with any
standards and guidelines that are applied to other generating
facilities in the Balancing Authority Area on a comparable basis.
The term ``voltage ride through'' as used herein shall mean the
ability of a Small Generating Facility to stay connected to and
synchronized with the system or equipment of the Transmission
Provider and any Affected Systems during system disturbances within
a range of under-voltage and over-voltage conditions, in accordance
with Good Utility Practice and consistent with any standards and
guidelines that are applied to other generating facilities in the
Balancing Authority Area on a comparable basis.

    13. The Commission proposes to apply the frequency ride through and
the voltage ride through requirements to any new small generating
facility that executes an SGIA after the effective date of proposed
section 1.5.7. In addition, the Commission proposes to apply the
requirements to any small generating facility that has an executed SGIA
as of the effective date of proposed section 1.5.7 but that takes any
action that requires the submission of a new interconnection request
and the request is submitted on or after the effective date of proposed
section 1.5.7. The Commission intends that the proposed revisions to
the pro forma SGIA would not affect any other interconnected small
generating facilities.
    14. At this time, the Commission does not propose to adopt specific
frequency and voltage ride through parameters. Instead, we propose to
allow for the development of appropriate system-specific standards,
which we expect will be based on work by recognized standards setting
bodies, such as IEEE.
    15. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed requirement for
small generating facilities to ride through defined frequency and
voltage disturbances.

B. Proposed Compliance Procedures

    16. The Commission proposes to require each public utility \22\
transmission provider that has an SGIA within its OATT to submit a
compliance filing within 90 days of the effective date of the final
rule in this proceeding revising the SGIA within its OATT subject to
the Commission's jurisdiction to demonstrate that it meets the
requirements set forth in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes of this NOPR, a public utility is a utility
that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for transmitting
electric energy in interstate commerce, as defined by the FPA. See
16 U.S.C. 824(e). A non-public utility that seeks voluntary
compliance with the reciprocity condition of an OATT may satisfy
that condition by filing an OATT, which includes an SGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Some public utility transmission providers may have provisions
in their existing SGIAs that the Commission has deemed to be consistent
with or superior to the pro forma SGIA. Where these provisions would be
modified by the final rule, public utility transmission providers must
either comply with the final rule or demonstrate that these previously-
approved variations continue to be consistent with or superior to the
pro forma SGIA as modified by the final rule. The Commission also
proposes to permit appropriate entities to seek ``independent entity
variations'' from the proposed revisions to the pro forma SGIA.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 at
P 827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Commission would assess whether each compliance filing
satisfies the proposed requirements stated above and issue additional
orders as necessary to ensure that each public utility transmission
provider meets the requirements of the subsequent final rule.
    19. The Commission proposes that transmission providers that are
not public utilities would have to adopt the requirements of this
proposal and subsequent final rule as a condition of maintaining the
status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the
reciprocity requirement of Order No. 888.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036, at 31,760-63 (1996),
order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048, order
on reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub
nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1
(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    20. The following collection of information contained in this NOPR
is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\25\ OMB's
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\26\ Upon approval of a collection
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to this collection of
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \26\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. The reforms proposed in this NOPR would amend the Commission's

pro forma SGIA in accordance with section 35.28(f)(1) of the
Commission's regulations.\27\ The NOPR proposes to require each public
utility transmission provider to amend its SGIA to require that all
newly interconnecting small generating facilities, as well as all
existing small generating facilities that submit new interconnection
requests, to ensure frequency ride through capability and voltage ride
through capability in accordance with good utility practice and
consistent with any standards and guidelines that are applied to other
generating facilities in the balancing authority area on a comparable
basis, as of the effective date of the final rule in this proceeding.
The reforms proposed in this NOPR would require filings of SGIAs with
the Commission. The Commission anticipates the reforms proposed in this
NOPR, once implemented, would not significantly change currently
existing burdens on an ongoing basis. With regard to those public
utility transmission providers that believe that they already comply
with the reforms proposed in this NOPR, they could demonstrate their
compliance in the filing required 90 days after the effective date of
the final rule in this proceeding. The Commission will submit the
proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1).
    \28\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. While the Commission expects the adoption of the proposed
reforms to provide significant benefits, the Commission understands
that implementation can be a complex and costly endeavor. The
Commission solicits comments on the accuracy of provided burden and
cost estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing the
respondents' burdens.
    Burden Estimate: The Commission believes that the burden estimates
below are representative of the average burden on respondents. The
estimated burden and cost for the requirements contained in this NOPR
follow.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Commission staff estimates that industry is similarly
situated in terms of hourly cost (wages plus benefits). Based on the
Commission average cost (wages plus benefits) for 2015, $72/hour is
used.

                                                      FERC 516A, Proposed Changes in NOPR in RM16-8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Number of     Annual  number
                                           respondents    of  responses    Total number     Average  burden  (Hrs.) and     Total annual  burden hours
                                              \30\       per  respondent   of responses       cost ($) per  response        and total  annual cost  ($)
                                                    (1)              (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)  (4)...........................  (3)*(4)=(5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conforming SGIA changes to incorporate              118                1             118  7.5 hrs.; $540................  885 hrs.; $63,720
 proposed revisions.
    Total..............................  ..............  ...............             118  7.5 hrs.; $540................  885 hrs.; $63,720
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the additional cost of
compliance as follows: \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Number of Applicable Registered Entities.
    \31\ The costs for Year 1 would consist of filing proposed
changes to the pro forma SGIA with the Commission within 90 days of
the effective date of the final revision plus initial
implementation. The Commission does not expect any ongoing costs
beyond the initial compliance in Year 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Year 1: $63,720 for all affected entities ($540/utility).
     Year 2 and subsequent years: $0.
    After implementation in Year 1, the reforms proposed in this NOPR
would be complete.
    Title: FERC-516A, Standardization of Small Generator
Interconnection Agreements and Procedures.
    Action: Revision of currently approved collection of information.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0203.
    Respondents for This Rulemaking: Businesses or other for profit
and/or not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency of Information: One-time during Year 1.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission is proposing changes to
the pro forma SGIA in order to more efficiently and cost-effectively
interconnect generating facilities no larger than 20 MW (small
generating facilities) to Commission-jurisdictional transmission
systems. The purpose of this NOPR is to revise the pro forma SGIA so
small generating facilities can be reliably and efficiently integrated
into the electric grid and to ensure that Commission-jurisdictional
services are provided at rates, terms and conditions that are just and
reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. This Proposed
Rule seeks to achieve this goal by amending the pro forma SGIA to
include proposed section 1.5.7.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
    23. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    24. Comments on the collection of information and the associated
burden estimate in the proposed rule should be sent to the Commission
in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission], at the following email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0203
and the docket number of this proposed rulemaking in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    25. 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.\32\ The
Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required for the revisions proposed
in

this NOPR under section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's regulations,
which provides a categorical exemption for approval of actions under
sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the filing of schedules
containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale of
electric energy subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the
classification, practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates,
charges, classifications, and services.\33\ The revisions proposed in
this NOPR would update and clarify the application of the Commission's
standard interconnection requirements to small generating facilities.
Therefore, this NOPR falls within the categorical exemptions provided
in the Commission's regulations, and as a result neither an
environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \33\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \34\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It
only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to
small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size
standards (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a
standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of
employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some
transmission owners will fall under the following category and
associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and
control, at 500 employees.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121
(Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The Commission estimates that the total number of public
utility transmission providers that would have to modify the SGIAs
within their currently effective OATTs is 118. Of these, the Commission
estimates that approximately 43 percent are small entities. The
Commission estimates the average total cost to each of these entities
will be minimal, requiring on average 7.5 hours or $540. According to
SBA guidance, the determination of significance of impact ``should be
seen as relative to the size of the business, the size of the
competitor's business, and the impact the regulation has on larger
competitors.'' \36\ The Commission does not consider the estimated
burden to be a significant economic impact. As a result, the Commission
certifies that the reforms proposed in this NOPR would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government
Agencies How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18
(May 2012), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Procedures

    29. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due May 23, 2016. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM16-8-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    30. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    31. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    32. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: March 17, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06509 Filed 3-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P