1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection Title: Brownfields Program   Revitalization Grantee Reporting, EPA ICR No. 2104.01.

This is a request for a new Information Collection Request ( ICR). This ICR covers the collection of information from those organizations that receive grants from EPA under the authority of subtitle A of the " Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" ( Public Law 107 118, January 2002). Subtitle A of the Act amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA), as amended, and authorizes EPA to award grants to states, tribes, local governments, and other eligible entities to support the assessment and cleanup of brownfields properties. With this ICR, EPA's Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Revitalization ( OBCR) seeks authorization to collect information from grantees using several standard forms that will streamline the data collection effort and improve the quality of information collected. The information collected under this ICR supplements the minimum reporting and record keeping requirements that grantees are subject to under 40 CFR Part 30, " Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non profit Organizations" and 40 CFR Part 31, " Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments." EPA estimates that all respondents who voluntarily respond to this information collection by electing to participate in the Brownfields grants program have determined that the expected benefits of participation outweigh any burden associated with preparing the response.

2. Need for/ Use of the Collection On January 11, 2002, the President signed into law the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act ( the " Brownfields Amendments"), which authorizes EPA to award several types of grants to eligible entities on a competitive basis. Under subtitle A of the Brownfields Amendments, States, tribes, local governments, and other eligible entities can receive grants to:

( 1) inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfields sites;

( 2) carry out cleanup activities at brownfields sites;

( 3) capitalize revolving loan funds and provide sub grants for cleanup activities; and ( 4) support the creation and implementation of environmental job training and placement programs.

Under the Brownfields Amendments, a brownfields site means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a 2 hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. For grant funding purposes, EPA uses the term " brownfields property( ies)" synonymously with the term " brownfields sites."

While the Agency collects basic grant information as part of its Federal stewardship responsibilities to manage and oversee recipient activities and expenditures ( see 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31), OBCR needs additional information from grantees to be reported in a consistent manner in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and to report on program activities and accomplishments to Congress and other program stakeholders. Specifically, OBCR will use the information collected from grantees to oversee the activities carried out using grant funds, to evaluate program implementation and effectiveness, and to meet the Agency's responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act to report on OBCR's accomplishments. The information collection activities covered by this ICR are intended to: ( 1) improve the alignment of reporting requirements with programmatic performance measures; and ( 2) simplify and standardize reporting requirements to reduce uncertainty and burden imposed on grantees. Without the information collection, OBCR would have limited access to information needed to effectively assess the relationship between those activities funded by EPA's subtitle A Brownfields grants and the intent of Congress with the passage of the Brownfields Amendments. 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a). Non duplication   There is no other known sources for the information that EPA seeks under this ICR. Moreover, this ICR supplements, and does not duplicate, the information that EPA collects as part of its reporting and record keeping provisions under the Agency's general assistance regulations at 40 CFR Part 30, " Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non profit Organizations," and 40 CFR Part 31, " Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments." EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 31, which implements the requirements of OMB Circular A 102, became effective for awards made on or after October 1, 1988. The Part 31 rule ( common rule) established uniformity among Federal agencies that award Federal grants and cooperative agreements to States, political subdivisions thereof, and Federallyrecognized Indian Tribal Governments. Exhibit 1 identifies the tasks and burdens of grant recipients that are covered under other OMB approved ICRs. This ICR addresses the burden imposed on grant recipients and EPA associated with the reporting requirements that are unique to grants awarded by EPA under authority of subtitle A of the Brownfields Amendments.

3( b). Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB. The first notification of the Agency's request for this new ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 16508) on April 4, 2003 ( see Attachment A for a copy of the Federal Register notice). EPA received two comments from one local government official during the sixty day public comment period. One comment addressed reporting provisions under the Agency's general assistance regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31, and does not pertain to the reporting requirements under this ICR. The second comment recommended that EPA allow electronic reporting to minimize grantee burden. EPA agrees with this comment and, as discussed in section 5( b) of this supporting statement, is currently developing an electronic reporting process that will allow grant recipients to report their 3 data electronically. Concurrent with the submission of this ICR to OMB, EPA is publishing a second Federal Register notice seeking public comments on this ICR.

3( c). Consultations   EPA has more than eight years of experience managing a Brownfields pilot program that awarded more than 670 cooperative agreements to State, local, and Tribal governments to address brownfields properties. For these Brownfields pilot grants, EPA staff have worked closely with the pilot recipients to help them participate in the program and address their brownfields properties. As such, EPA has a detailed understanding of the activities that grantees undertake and the burden they incur for voluntarily participating in EPA's grants programs. In addition, during the preparation of this ICR and the reporting forms that are included, EPA contacted eight Brownfields pilot recipients to ask them specific questions about the burden associated with completing the draft forms included in this ICR. Pilot recipient responses form the basis of EPA's calculations of the burden hours and costs.

Exhibit 1: Grant Burdens Covered Under Other Agency ICRs Task/ Burden Authority Agency Approved ICR Preliminary Grant Proposal 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Final Grant Proposal 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Budget Sheets 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Quarterly Progress Reports 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Notification of Significant Developments 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Procurement Reports 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Financial Reports 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 Project Records 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31 OMB 2030 0020 3( d). Effects of Less Frequent Collection   The information collection schedule is consistent with the Agency's reporting schedule for general assistance grants. Less frequent collection may not enable EPA to oversee and manage Brownfields grants effectively and would lessen OBCR's ability to report up to date and accurate information on program activities and accomplishments. In consideration of the burden imposed on grantees, EPA has adopted less frequent reporting for the Property Profile form in which grantees are required to update and submit the form as notable activities or changes occur at a particular property. EPA anticipates that recipients of assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grants will submit an updated Property Profile form to EPA, on average, two times a year but not more than quarterly.

3( e). General Guidelines   The information collection is consistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6 of the Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines. 1For the purposes of the Brownfields grant program, EPA defines general purpose unit of local government as a " local government" as that term is defined under 40 CFR Part 31.

2For the purposes of the Brownfields grant program, EPA uses the definition of nonprofit organization contained in Section 4( 6) of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106 107.

4 3( f). Confidentiality   No confidentiality is provided and no sensitive information is collected under this ICR.

3( g). Sensitive Questions   Sensitive questions are not associated with the information collection activities performed under Public Law 107 118.

4. Respondents and Information Requested 4( a). Respondents   Respondents under this ICR are those entities who voluntarily elect to participate in the Brownfields grants program and receive grant funding from EPA under the authority of subtitle A of the Brownfields Amendments. Specifically, respondents to this information collection include: general purpose units of local government;; land clearance authorities or other quasi governmental entities that operate under the supervision and control of, or as an agent of, a general purpose unit of local government; government entities created by state legislature; regional councils or groups of general purpose units of local government; redevelopment agencies that are chartered or otherwise sanctioned by the State; States; Indian Tribes other than in Alaska; Alaska Native Regional Corporations, Alaska Native Village Corporations, and Metlakatla Indian Communities; or non profit organizations..

4( b). Information Requested   The information requested by EPA under this ICR includes information from grantees specific to the activities undertaken and the accomplishments that result using Brownfields grant funds. The information to be collected by EPA will vary by the type of grant awarded to the respondent. Brownfields job training grantees are required to complete on a quarterly basis the Brownfields Job Training Reporting Form ( see Attachment B). The Job Training Reporting Form seeks basic information on how grant funds were used to support job training programs and the accomplishments stemming from those programs. For example, job training grantees will report the number of participants who have completed the training, whether participants obtained employment, and the average hourly wages of participants who obtained employment.

For Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grants, EPA requires grantees to prepare an initial Property Profile Form ( see Attachment C) for each property at which grant funds are expended. The Property Profile Form complements the information collected as part of the quarterly reports required by the general assistance regulations, and requests basic information about each brownfields property covered by the grant, such as property name, location, parcel number, and size. EPA requires grantees to update the Property Profile Form as notable activities or changes occur on the property, but no more frequently than quarterly. For example, as an assessment of the property is completed, grantees are required to 5 complete the portion of the Property Profile Form that applies to assessments, and provide basic information to EPA on the type of assessment, date of completion, and results or findings of the assessment. Other sections of the Property Profile Form collect basic information on cleanups and any redevelopment activities that occur on the property, including estimates of the number of jobs that result.

5. The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection, Methodology and Information Management 5( a). Agency Activities   EPA is responsible to Congress and other stakeholders to ensure that its resources are being used efficiently and effectively, to evaluate the progress of the grantees in meeting the goals of EPA's Brownfields Cleanup and Revitalization Program, and to share the successes, lessons learned, and best practices among Brownfields grantees. EPA will collect the information using standardized forms that minimize the burden on respondents while ensuring consistent information that can be easily aggregated and accurately reported. EPA program staff will review the information collected to keep current on grant activities, and will enter the information into the Agency's Brownfields Management System ( BMS). EPA uses BMS to maintain information on all of its Brownfields grants, develop reports to support management and program evaluation activities, and to report accomplishments achieved as part of the Agency's responsibilities under GPRA.

5( b). Collection Methodology and Management   EPA will collect data under this ICR using a standard set of forms, instructions, and guidance that are designed to simplify and facilitate the reporting requirements for grant recipients. In fulfilling the requirements under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act ( Public Law 105 277), EPA is currently developing an electronic reporting process that will allow grant recipients to report their data electronically. This electronic reporting process will be integrated with EPA's Enterprise Architecture to further streamline the Agency's data management and reporting responsibilities. EPA expects that this electronic reporting process will be available to grantees beginning in the first quarter of FY2004. EPA will modify its reporting guidance and provide training when the electronic reporting process is in place. EPA anticipates that the electronic reporting process may reduce the burden placed on grant recipients; preliminary estimates based on conversations with current and former Brownfields pilot recipients suggest that such a process will reduce the reporting burden by an estimated 20 to 50 percent.

5( c). Small Entity Flexibility   This information collection request is expected to affect small governmental jurisdictions, which are defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes, in keeping with the President's Federal Indian Policy. EPA has considered whether to establish different reporting requirements for small entities and has determined that: ( 1) different reporting requirements among grantees will result in inconsistent data that may lessen the Agency's ability to oversee and report on program activities and accomplishments; ( 2) the burden imposed by this information collection is relatively small and small entities should not be unduly burdened by the reporting requirement; and ( 3) the 6 Brownfields grants program is voluntary and respondents who elect to participate in this program have determined that the expected benefits of participation outweigh any burden associated with preparing the response.

5( d). Collection Schedule   The information to be collected under this ICR shall not occur more frequently than quarterly. Brownfields Job Training grant recipients must complete and/ or update their Brownfields Job Training Performance Form every quarter. For assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grants, grantees will be required to prepare an initial Property Profile form for each property at which grant funds are expended, and to update the Property Profile forms quarterly for only those properties in which notable activities or changes have occurred.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a). Estimating respondent burden  A " unit" burden is the burden incurred by a respondent for performing a specific activity that is not covered by another ICR ( such as 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31). The estimated burden is incurred by the following activities:

° Completion of the Brownfields Job Training Reporting Form;

° Initial completion of the Brownfields Property Profile Form;

° Periodic updating of the Brownfields Property Profile Form to report progress on specific properties undergoing assessment, cleanup, or redevelopment; and The estimated burden for respondents is presented in Exhibit 2.

If any burdens were found to be imposed in the ICR by a rule that supercedes the Brownfields Amendments, those burdens, or a percentage of those burdens, were removed from the overall burden calculation in this ICR ( see Exhibit 1).

6( b). Estimating respondent costs  To estimate the unit burden ( hours) and hourly rate for each information collection activity, EPA relied on its extensive experience working closely with Brownfields pilot grant recipients, as well as in depth interviews with eight current or former pilot grant recipients specific to this ICR. Those interviewed were shown draft copies of all forms and accompanying instructions and guidance that would be used for reporting and asked to estimate: ( 1) the number of hours that would be required to perform each task; and ( 2) the labor mix required to perform each task ( e. g., percentage of management, technical, clerical). The data gathered from these interviews were then analyzed to estimate the unit burden and labor mix. Exhibit 2  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Activity Unit Burden ( Hours) Unit Labor Cost ( Dollars) Total Unit Cost ( Dollars) Average Number of Responses/ Year* Total Burden/ Year ( Hours)* Total Cost/ Year ( Dollars)* 7 Job Training Performance Form 5 $ 29.57 $ 147.85 93 467 $ 13,750 Initial Completion of Property Profile Form 1 $ 29.57 $ 29.57 1,225 1,225 $ 36,223 Update of Property Profile Form 1.5 $ 29.57 $ 44.36 3,752 5,628 $ 166,420 TOTAL 5,070 7,320 $ 216,393 AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BURDEN HOUR $ 29.57 * Figures may not sum due to rounding. 3See Bureau of Labor Statistics publication entitled " Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: state and local government, by occupational group, December 2002." http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t04. htm# content.

8 The unit labor cost ( dollars) for this burden estimate is a weighted hourly rate based upon the estimated labor mix and wage rates gathered from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). Across all tasks, data from consultations indicate that the average grantee will incur 15 percent of its burden with executive/ managerial staff labor, 5% with professional specialty staff labor, 70 percent with technical labor, and 10 percent with administrative support or clerical labor. This labor mix was applied to BLS, National Compensation Survey ( NCS) data issued in December 20022 for a weighted hourly rate of $ 29.57.

Job training grant recipients will be required to report progress on a quarterly basis using EPA's " Job Training Reporting Form  Brownfields" ( see Attachment B). Grantees will be required to report progress on a quarterly basis, with each update requiring approximately 5 hours for a unit burden of $ 147.85. The majority of this burden stems from the collection of salary or wage information from job training program participants who are able to find employment.

Cleanup, assessment, and revolving loan fund grant recipients will be required to report progress with the " Property Profile Form   Brownfields" ( see Attachment C). EPA anticipates that the initial completion of this form will require approximately 1 hour. Grantees will be required to update this form as grant milestones are achieved, though not more frequently than quarterly. It is estimated that each update will require approximately 1.5 hours for a unit burden of $ 44.36. It is estimated that each form will be updated an average of twice per year.

All grants awarded under subtitle A of the Brownfields Amendments cover a period of performance of two years. Based on the Agency's experience under its pilot grants program, EPA estimates that at the end of two years, approximately 75 percent of grants will receive a nocost extension, approximately 20 percent of grantees will receive supplemental awards, and 5 percent of grants will close out. Grantees that receive either a no cost extension or a supplemental award will be required to continue to report on their grant activities using the forms authorized under this ICR. This burden is included in the estimated number of responses per year and, therefore, the overall burden calculation estimated for this ICR.

Start up costs to meet the Brownfields grants reporting requirements are minimal and are a part of the customary and usual expenses incurred by grantees. There are no capital costs related to Brownfields reporting requirements. Therefore, total start up and capital costs are zero. There are no operation and maintenance costs required.

6( c). Agency burden and costs  EPA incurs a burden in the process of requesting, reviewing and processing the information covered by this ICR. This burden includes:

° The development of grant profiles with information collected from grantees; ° Reviewing and processing Brownfields Job Training Reporting Forms; ° Reviewing and processing initial Brownfields Property Profile Forms; and ° Reviewing and processing updates of Brownfields Property Profile Forms. 9 10 The estimated burden associated with EPA activities is presented in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3  Annual Agency Burden and Cost Activity Unit Burden ( Hours) Unit Labor Cost ( Dollars) Total Unit Cost ( Dollars) Average Number of Responses / Forms per Year ( Full) Total Burden ( Hours)* Total Cost ( Dollars)*

Preparation of Grant Profile 4.5 $ 26.81 $ 120.65 203 912 $ 24,504 Review and Process Job Training Performance Form 1.5 $ 26.81 $ 40.22 93 140 $ 3,753 Review and Process Initial Property Profile Form 2.5 $ 26.81 $ 67.03 1,225 3,063 $ 82,119 Review and Process Updates of Property Profile Form 2 $ 26.81 $ 53.62 3,752 7,503 $ 201,182 TOTAL* 11,618 $ 311,558 AVERAGE TOTAL COST PER BURDEN HOUR $ 26.81 * Figures may not sum due to rounding The burden imposed upon EPA was estimated by: ( 1) interviewing EPA Regional and Headquarters staff to gather individual estimates of the time required to perform each activity and the GS level of the staff performing those tasks; ( 2) averaging the time data to estimate the number of hours required for each burden element; ( 3) averaging the data on the percentage of time performed by particular staff GS levels; ( 4) developing a weighted hourly rate based upon percentage of staff labor at different GS levels devoted to each task; and ( 5) determining the product of the weighted hourly rate and the number of hours required per activity.

The weighted hourly rate utilized in the Federal burden estimate is based upon the following composite:

GS Level Percent Hourly Wage Rate*

GS 4, Step 1 10% $ 10.04 GS 11, Step 1 10% $ 20.59 GS 13, Step 1 75% $ 29.35 GS 14, Step 1 5% $ 34.68 Weighted Rate $ 26.81 * Rates for 2003 General Schedule 11 6( d). Estimated Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs   The estimated annual average number of respondents per year for this information collection is 203 respondents, with the average total number of responses per year estimated at 5,070. As presented in Exhibit 2, the total average annual burden to respondents is 7,320 hours per year at a cost of $ 216,393.

6( e). Bottom line burden hours and costs   Exhibits 2 and 3 provide the bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents and EPA, respectively. The hours and costs presented in these exhibits represent the average annual burden resulting from this information collection; the total burden hours and costs for the three year period covered under this ICR is estimated to be three times the total hours and costs provided in each exhibit.

6( f). Reasons for Change in Burden   This is a new information collection and, as such, there is no change in burden.

6( g). Burden Statement   The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response for job training grant recipients, and 1.25 hours per response for assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grant recipients. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. SFUND 2003 0004, which is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. SFUND 2003 0004 and EPA ICR No. 2104.01 in any correspondence. Attachment A: Federal Register Notice Seeking Public Comment on the Agency's Information Collection Request for the Brownfields Program   Revitalization Grantee Reporting 1


[Federal Register: October 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 209)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66702-66708]
[DOCID:fr29oc10-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM09-19-000]

Western Electric Coordinating Council; Qualified Transfer Path
Unscheduled Flow Relief Regional Reliability Standard

October 21, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 (Qualified Transfer Path
Unscheduled Flow Relief) submitted to the Commission for approval by
the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. While we propose
to approve the regional Reliability Standard, as discussed in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IRO-006-WECC-1 raises some concerns
about which the Commission requests additional information. Depending
upon the responses received, in the Final Rule the Commission may, as a
separate action under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, direct the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council to develop modifications to the
regional Reliability Standard to address the issues identified.

DATES: Comments are due December 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket
No. RM09-19-000, by any of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: 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. Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original copy of their
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. These
requirements can be found on the Commission's Web site, see, e.g., the
``Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions,'' available at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp or via phone from FERC Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mindi Sauter (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Danny Johnson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission proposes to approve regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-
WECC-1 (Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) submitted to
the Commission for approval by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO). While we propose to approve the regional
Reliability Standard, as discussed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, IRO-006-WECC-1 raises some concerns about which the
Commission requests additional information. Depending upon the
responses received, the Commission may, in the Final Rule, direct the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) to develop
modifications to the regional Reliability Standard to address the
issues identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Background

A. Section 215 of the FPA and NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are
subject to Commission review and approval.\2\ Approved Reliability
Standards are enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or
by the Commission independently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission certified NERC as the ERO in July 2006. North
American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062 (ERO
Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ]
61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC
Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693 approving
83 Reliability Standards proposed by NERC, including Reliability
Standard IRO-006-3, titled ``Reliability Coordination--Transmission
Loading Relief.'' \3\ In

addition, the Commission directed the ERO to develop modifications to
IRO-006-3 and other approved Reliability Standards to address specific
issues identified by the Commission, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of
the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 establishes a Transmission
Loading Relief (TLR) process for use in the Eastern Interconnection to
alleviate loadings on the system by curtailing or changing transactions
based on their priorities and according to different levels of TLR
procedures. Requirement R2.2 provides that ``the equivalent
Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure for use in
the Western Interconnection is the WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation
Plan.'' This document provides detailed instructions for addressing
unscheduled flows, e.g., parallel path flows, based on the topography
and configuration of the Bulk-Power System in the Western
Interconnection. The Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan identifies nine
``steps'' to address unscheduled flows. In the first three steps, the
Mitigation Plan relies on phase angle regulators, series capacitors,
and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate contingencies without curtailing
transactions. Steps four and above involve curtailment of transactions.
    5. On March 19, 2009, the Commission approved IRO-006-4, which
modified the prior version of the Reliability Standard and addressed
the Commission's directives from Order No. 693.\4\ The Commission
subsequently accepted an erratum to that Reliability Standard that
corrected the reference in Requirement R1.2 to the Unscheduled Flow
Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief
Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization
Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability
Standards, Order No. 713-A, 126 FERC ] 61,252 (2009).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD09-
9-000 (Dec. 10, 2009) (unpublished letter order). Note that
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4.1, Requirement R1.2 refers to the
``WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure,'' which is Attachment 1
to the Mitigation Plan, the term we use herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. WECC Delegation Agreement and WECC Regional Reliability Standard
IRO-STD-006-0

    6. On April 19, 2007, the Commission approved delegation agreements
between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities, including
WECC.\6\ Pursuant to such agreements, the ERO delegated responsibility
to the Regional Entities to enforce the mandatory, Commission-approved
Reliability Standards. In addition, the Commission approved, as part of
each delegation agreement, a Regional Entity process for developing
regional Reliability Standards. In the Delegation Agreement Order, the
Commission accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an
Interconnection-wide basis and accepted WECC's Standards Development
Manual, which sets forth the process for development of WECC's
Reliability Standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,060, order on reh'g, 120 FERC ] 61,260 (2007) (Delegation
Agreement Order).
    \7\ Id. P 469-470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. On June 8, 2007, the Commission approved eight WECC regional
Reliability Standards that apply in the Western Interconnection,
including IRO-STD-006-0.\8\ The regional Reliability Standard applies
to transmission operators, load-serving entities and balancing
authorities within the Western Interconnection. Currently effective
IRO-STD-006-0 addresses the mitigation of transmission overloads due to
unscheduled line flow on specified paths. Specifically, Requirement R1
of IRO-STD-006-0 states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,260
(June 8, 2007 Order).

    WECC's Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (Plan) * * * specifies
that members shall comply with requests from (Qualified) Transfer
Path Operators to take actions that will reduce unscheduled flow on
the Qualified Path in accordance with the table entitled ``WECC
Unscheduled Flow Procedure Summary of Curtailment Actions,'' which
is located in Attachment 1 of the Plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Regional Reliability Standard IRO-STD-006-0, available at
http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/Approved%20Standards/IRO-STD-006-
0.pdf.

The regional Reliability Standard then provides excerpts from the plan
that describe actions entities must take to address unscheduled flow.
    8. The June 8, 2007 Order directed WECC to develop certain
modifications to the eight WECC Reliability Standards to address issues
identified by the Commission. With respect to IRO-STD-006-0, the
Commission directed WECC to clarify the term ``receiver'' used in the
Reliability Standard. The Commission also directed WECC to address
concerns raised by a commenter regarding WECC's inclusion of load-
serving entities, which may be unable to meet the Reliability
Standard's requirements, in the applicability section of the
Reliability Standard.\10\ The Commission directed WECC to remove a
Sanctions Table (identifying a maximum penalty of $10,000 per
violation) that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanctions Guidelines. The
Commission also directed WECC to address NERC's concerns regarding
formatting, use of standard terms, and the need for greater specificity
in the actions that a responsible entity must take.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ June 8, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ] 61,260 at P 70-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petition for Proposed Regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1

A. Proposed Regional Reliability Standard

    9. In a June 17, 2009 filing, NERC requests Commission approval of
proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1, which was
developed in response to the Commission's directives in the June 8,
2007 Order, to replace the currently effective regional Standard.\11\
NERC states that the purpose of IRO-006-WECC-1 is to mitigate
transmission overloads due to unscheduled flow on Qualified Transfer
Paths. Under the Reliability Standard, reliability coordinators are
responsible for initiating schedule curtailments and balancing
authorities are responsible for implementing the curtailments.
Specifically, proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1
contains the following two Requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., June 17, 2009
Petition for Approval of Proposed Western Electricity Coordinating
Council Regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 (NERC
Petition).

    R.1. Upon receiving a request of Step 4 or greater (see
Attachment 1-IRO-006-WECC-1) from the Transmission Operator of a
Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability Coordinator shall approve
(actively or passively) or deny that request within five minutes.
    R.2. The Balancing Authorities shall approve curtailment
requests to the schedules as submitted, implement alternative
actions, or a combination there of that collectively meets the
Relief Requirement.

An attachment to IRO-006-WECC-1 summarizes the nine steps and related
actions to address unscheduled flows.

    10. NERC states that the revised regional Reliability Standard
addresses the Commission's prior concerns by removing load-serving
entities as an applicable entity, no longer referring to receivers, and
addressing formatting changes required by NERC and the Commission's
June 8, 2007 Order. Further, NERC states the proposed Reliability
Standard is justified on the basis that the regional Reliability
Standard's requirements are more stringent than those contained in the
associated NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-4. NERC explains that the
NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-4

requires a reliability coordinator experiencing a potential or actual
System Operating Limit (SOL) or Interconnection Reliability Operating
Limit (IROL) violation to take appropriate actions to relieve
transmission loading using local or Interconnection-wide procedures.
According to NERC, Requirement R1 of the proposed regional Reliability
Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 goes beyond the NERC requirements by
establishing a process to reduce schedules that prevents potential
overloads during the next operating hour. In addition, the proposed
Reliability Standard requires each reliability coordinator to approve
or deny a request submitted by a Qualified Transfer Path transmission
operator within five minutes. Requirement R2 of the proposed regional
Reliability Standard requires each balancing authority to approve
curtailment requests to the schedules as submitted, implement
alternative actions, or a combination thereof, which collectively meet
the relief requirement.

B. Concerns Raised by NERC Regarding the WECC Proposal

    11. In the Petition, NERC explains that, when WECC submitted IRO-
006-WECC-1 for NERC's review, NERC was concerned that the proposed
Standard no longer contains requirements that are more stringent than
the continent-wide NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, which was the
main justification for consideration of IRO-006-WECC-1 as the regional
Reliability Standard.\12\ NERC states that, at the direction of the
NERC Board of Trustees, NERC staff met several times with WECC staff to
discuss its concerns with the proposed regional Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Pre-Curtailment Actions
    12. In its Petition, NERC expressed several concerns. First, NERC
was concerned that the proposed Standard only includes the curtailment
portion of the Mitigation Plan. In contrast, the current regional
Reliability Standard IRO-STD-006-0 references WECC's Mitigation Plan,
which contains directions in steps one through three to reduce flows
through use of phase-angle regulators, series capacitors, and back-to-
back DC lines before transaction curtailment.
    13. According to the NERC Petition, WECC explained that the
proposed regional Reliability Standard contains the curtailment portion
of the Mitigation Plan ``because the remaining items contain procedural
requirements explaining `how,' not `what.' '' \13\ WECC explained to
NERC that two WECC regional Reliability Standards work together.
Proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 prevents overloads during the next hour by
requiring applicable entities to reduce schedules and adjust generation
patterns. In addition, regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1
(System Operating Limits), contains instructions for mitigation of an
actual, real-time overload.\14\ According to WECC, these regional
Reliability Standards, combined, ensure that the transmission operator
will utilize the phase-angle regulators, series capacitors, and back-
to-back DC lines before transaction curtailment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 30.
    \14\ NERC's petition for approval of regional Reliability
Standard TOP-007-WECC-1 is currently pending before the Commission
in Docket No. RM09-14-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In addition, NERC provided additional supplemental information
in Exhibit C of its Petition regarding how WECC envisions the
implementation of proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-
1. Exhibit C contains the complete development record of proposed
regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 and includes WECC's
undated response to NERC's concerns regarding the interaction between
TOP-007-WECC-1 and IRO-006-WECC-1.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The document is titled, ``Interaction between TOP-007-WECC-
1 and IRO-006-WECC-1.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Specifically, NERC raised a concern that ``IRO-006-WECC-1
removed a requirement for the Transmission Operator (TOP) to request
relief through the WECC Qualified Path Unscheduled Flow Relief
Procedure when a qualified transfer path exceeded or was close to
exceeding a System Operating Limit (SOL).'' In response, WECC stated
that ``the requirements of another WECC regional reliability standard,
TOP-STD-007-0 (interim approved Tier 1 standard), as well as the WECC
proposed replacement regional reliability standard TOP-007-WECC-1,
require the TOP to take actions to ensure that SOLs are not exceeded.''
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Exhibit C to NERC Petition, Interaction between TOP-007-
WECC-1 and IRO-006-WECC-1 at 1.
    Requirement WR1 of the currently applicable regional Reliability
Standard, TOP-STD-007-0 provides, in part, that ``Actual power flow
and net scheduled power flow over an interconnection or transfer
path shall be maintained within Operating Transfer Capability
Limits.'' The NERC Glossary defines Operating Transfer Capability
Limit as ``the maximum value of the most critical system operating
parameter(s) which meets: (a) Precontingency criteria as determined
by equipment loading capability and acceptable voltage conditions,
(b) transient criteria as determined by equipment loading capability
and acceptable voltage conditions, (c) transient performance
criteria, and (d) post-contingency loading and voltage criteria.''
    Proposed regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1,
Requirement R1 provides that ``When the actual power flow exceeds an
SOL for a Transmission path, the Transmission Operators shall take
immediate action to reduce the actual power flow across the path
such that at no time shall the power flow for the Transmission path
exceed the SOL for more than 30 minutes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. WECC further explained that TOP-WECC-007-1 requires
Transmission Operators to keep path flows and schedules at or below
SOLs for 40 identified paths. WECC stated that ``TOPs, in coordination
with the Reliability Coordinators, may select from several methods'' to
reduce flows, and provide several examples, such as on path schedule
curtailments, adjust controllable devices (e.g., phase shifters, series
capacitors), use of the WECC Mitigation Plan if the path experiencing
the loading is a qualified path, or local procedures, as well as other
examples. WECC further explained that the ``key point'' with respect to
qualified paths, ``is that it is TOP-007-WECC-1, not IRO-006-WECC-1,
that requires the TOP to take actions to reduce flows to within SOLs.''
\17\ In situations where the Transmission Operator has taken action to
reduce the flows on qualified paths, but the flows remain near or
exceeding the SOL, ``IRO-006-WECC-1 requires curtailment of
Contributing Schedules or provision of comparable relief through other
means, as identified in the Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure [a
portion of the Mitigation Plan].'' \18\ WECC further notes that
``implementation of the [Mitigation Plan] is one of the options
available to the TOP to prevent potential violations of TOP-007-WECC-1.
If the TOP is able to take other actions to keep actual flows within
SOLs, the TOP may not need or desire to utilize the [Mitigation Plan].
* * * However, if the TOP chooses the [Mitigation Plan] as one of the
alternatives to manage flows, the requirements of IRO-006-WECC-1 make
it mandatory for entities with Contributing Schedules to curtail these
schedules, upon approval by the [reliability coordinator], to provide
the necessary relief.'' \19\ WECC summarizes the interaction between
the two regional standards, stating that ``IRO-006-WECC-1 provides
entities with the necessary motivation to curtail off-path schedules
and adjust generation to prevent and/or reduce qualified path
overloads, thus facilitating compliance with TOP-007-WECC-1.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Exhibit C to Petition, Interaction between TOP-007-WECC-1
and IRO-006-WECC-1 at 2.
    \18\ Id. at 2-3.
    \19\ Id. at 3.
    \20\ Id. at 4.

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

2. Role of Reliability Coordinator
    17. NERC's second concern with the proposed regional Standard was
with regard to the role of the reliability coordinator. According to
the NERC Petition, NERC staff requested clarification regarding the
role of the reliability coordinator in initiating curtailments. In the
proposed Reliability Standard, IRO-006-WECC-1, the reliability
coordinator is only obligated to respond to a transmission operator's
curtailment request. However, there is no mention in either the
proposed Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 or TOP-007-WECC-1 that the entity with
the wide-area view, the reliability coordinator, can initiate
curtailment requests if needed for reliability. Nor do they indicate
what recourse the transmission operator has if the reliability
coordinator denies the request for curtailment. WECC confirmed that the
reliability coordinator does not initiate curtailments but, rather,
approves the transmission operator's request for curtailment.
Requirement R1 of proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 requires the reliability
coordinator to approve or deny the request, which is accomplished using
the OATI webSAS tool.\21\ Unless the reliability coordinator denies the
request for reliability reasons, the webSAS tool, through preprogrammed
algorithms, identifies the off-path schedules to curtail and submits
those curtailments to the entities identified on the tags. WECC also
confirmed that the reliability coordinator has the wide-area view and,
when a transmission operator requests curtailment of off-path
schedules, the reliability coordinator may deny the request for
reliability reasons. In that situation, the transmission operator, in
coordination with the reliability coordinator, would then follow one of
the other WECC or local procedures for reducing path flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The webSAS (Security Analysis System) is a proprietary
Internet based application that is used by WECC to analyze,
initiate, communicate, and provide compliance reports for
implementation of the Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure. It is
available by subscription through the vendor to provide notification
of Unscheduled Flow Events, calculate and display required relief,
and provide a rapid method of transaction curtailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. NERC states that, as a result of WECC's clarification, the NERC
Board of Trustees approved proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 on February 10,
2009.

III. Discussion

    19. Under section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we propose to approve
regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1, as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. In
addition, we ask WECC, the ERO, and other interested entities to
provide further clarification regarding several aspects of the proposed
regional Reliability Standard. Depending on the responses to our
concerns, we may determine that it is appropriate to direct WECC to
develop modifications to the proposed regional Reliability Standard
under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA.
    20. It is the Commission's view that the proposed regional
Reliability Standard adequately addresses a number of the directives
identified in the June 8, 2007 Order and represents improvement to the
standard. For example, it appears that IRO-006-WECC-1 adequately
addresses our concern regarding use of the term ``receiver'' by
removing the term, and thereby eliminating potential confusion that
could result from the undefined term. The proposed regional Reliability
Standard also provides additional clarity by removing load-serving
entities from the applicability section of the standard. This is
beneficial since, as noted by NERC and WECC, load-serving entities may
be unable to meet the Reliability Standard's requirements with regard
to curtailment procedures. Further, unlike the currently effective
regional Reliability Standard, IRO-006-WECC-1 would include reliability
coordinators as an applicable entity and would address their role in
curtailment procedures.
    21. As indicated by NERC, proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 appears to go
beyond the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard by requiring a
reliability coordinator to approve or deny a request submitted by a
transmission operator within five minutes.
    22. The WECC Reliability Standard also addresses formatting
concerns, including the use of standard terms, conformance with NERC's
Violation Severity Level and Violation Risk Factor matrix, and the
elimination of a WECC sanction table (with a maximum penalty of
$10,000) and ``Excuse of Performance'' section in the currently
effective WECC standard that significantly differ from NERC's Sanction
Guidelines. In addition, IRO-006-WECC-1 ensures that the requirements
are part of the regional Reliability Standard rather than embedded in a
filing. For these reasons, we propose to approve the proposed WECC
Reliability Standard.

Commission Concerns

    23. However, in addressing the Commission's directives, such as the
removal of load-serving entities and the term ``receivers,'' it appears
that WECC has raised some other concerns that create possible conflicts
or inconsistencies between proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 and NERC's currently
effective IRO-006-4, as discussed below. In modifying the regional
Reliability Standard, WECC has eliminated the reference to the
Mitigation Plan, included in both the NERC standard, IRO-006-4, and the
currently effective WECC standard. As mentioned above, the Mitigation
Plan includes nine steps to address unscheduled flows; steps four and
above requiring varying levels of curtailments of transactions.
Requirement R1 of proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 provides that ``[u]pon
receiving a request of Step 4 or greater * * * from the Transmission
Operator of a Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability Coordinator
shall approve * * * or deny that request within five minutes'';
however, steps one through three are no longer referenced in IRO-006-
WECC-1 or in the related regional Standard TOP-007-WECC-1.
    24. On the other hand, NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-4
continues to specifically reference the Mitigation Plan with regard to
transmission loading relief in the Western Interconnection. However,
the Mitigation Plan has not been updated to include the requirement
that the reliability coordinator act on a request for relief within
five minutes, an improvement contained in WECC's proposed IRO-006-WECC-
1. Likewise, the Mitigation Plan continues to reference and require
action by ``receivers,'' while that term is removed from the proposed
WECC regional Reliability Standard, in conformance with the
Commission's directive in the June 8, 2007 Order.
    25. Because of these dichotomies between the proposed regional
Reliability Standard and the corresponding NERC Standard, we have
several areas of concern regarding how the proposed regional Standard
would work in practice to ensure Reliable Operation in the Western
Interconnection. Specifically, we are concerned with: (1) How entities
will know whether to follow the national or regional Standard in a
given situation; (2) WECC's and NERC's reliance on TOP-007-WECC-1 to
ensure that entities manage power flows using steps one through three
of the Mitigation Plan prior to requesting curtailments; (3) how the
webSAS tool will work with respect to the national and regional
Standard; and (4) the potential reliability impact of reliability
coordinators' inability to request curtailments.

    26. With regard to our first concern, it is our understanding that
in responding to unscheduled flows on qualified paths, entities would
initially follow the requirements of the current regional TOP-007
Reliability Standard (whichever version is in effect), which would
allow the option of using steps one through three of the Mitigation
Plan. Although the requirement in the current regional Reliability
Standard TOP-STD-007-0 does not specifically require Transmission
Operators to perform steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan, it
requires Transmission Operators to maintain flow within Operating
Transfer Capability Limits, which gives the Transmission Operator the
authority to take whatever actions necessary to return within its
Operating Transfer Capability Limit or SOL (depending on the version of
the Standard). Specifically, as described above, the approved regional
Reliability Standard TOP-STD-007-0 does not allow for operation
exceeding an Operating Transfer Capability Limit for longer than a
specified period of time. Additionally, without prejudging the proposal
pending before us in Docket No. RM09-9-000, we note that proposed
regional Standard TOP-WECC-007-0 does not allow for operation exceeding
an SOL for longer than a specified period of time and also requires a
transmission operator to take immediate action to reduce such flows.
Thus, as WECC explained with respect to the proposed TOP-007-WECC-1,
one of the Transmission Operator's options for ensuring that flows are
maintained within Operating Transfer Capability Limits is to utilize
steps one through three. Both of these regional Reliability Standards
give the transmission operator authority to use various means to ensure
that the system is returned to within an SOL or IROL, including
utilizing the options listed within steps one through three of the
Mitigation Plan if deemed appropriate. If those steps prove
ineffective, it is our understanding that a transmission operator may
choose, if the path qualifies, to request curtailments, which would
require reliability coordinators and balancing authorities to follow
steps four through nine of the proposed regional Standard, IRO-006-
WECC-1. Because of this, we are unclear how the NERC IRO-006-4 national
Reliability Standard would interact with the regional Reliability
Standards, or if the national and regional Standards are duplicative.
Accordingly, we request comment from NERC, WECC, and other interested
entities regarding the interaction between the differing requirements
contained in the regional versus national Reliability Standard. We also
seek comment on which of the Standards' requirements take precedence
and how NERC envisions ensuring compliance and consistent enforcement
with regard to the Standards.
    27. In a related vein, NERC indicates that proposed IRO-006-WECC-1
is more stringent than NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006 and ``goes
beyond the NERC Requirements by establishing a process to reduce
schedules that prevent potential overloads during the next operating
hour.'' \22\ However, it is not clear to the Commission why that same
benefit is not contained in the Mitigation Plan, which is referenced in
the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard. The Commission seeks
comment on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NERC Petition at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Our second concern is that, as noted above, the portion of the
Mitigation Plan that the Commission relied upon in determining that the
current regional Reliability Standard IRO-STD-006-0 is more stringent
than the NERC Standard was contained within the procedures for steps
one through three (i.e., use of phase-angle regulators, series
capacitors, and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate unscheduled flows
before transaction curtailment), which is no longer referenced in
proposed IRO-006-WECC-1. The NERC Petition states that another WECC
regional Reliability Standard, TOP-STD-007-0 or TOP-007-WECC-1
(whichever is in effect), works in conjunction with IRO-006-WECC-1 to
ensure these functions are performed. However, TOP-STD-007-0 requires
transmission operators to ensure that power flows are maintained within
Operating Transfer Capability Limits, but does not explicitly state
that they must perform steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan.
Similarly, without prejudging the pending proposal, it appears that
TOP-007-WECC-1 generally requires entities to take action to reduce the
actual flow to within SOL levels in within set time limits, but does
not explicitly require action based on the specific options set forth
in steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan. NERC and WECC posit
that TOP-007-WECC-1 focuses on the ``what'' and not the ``how.''
Nonetheless, the Commission is concerned whether WECC's reliance on
TOP-STD-007-0 or TOP-007-WECC-1 (whichever is in effect) is an adequate
replacement for the currently required pre-curtailment actions set
forth and currently required in steps one through three of the
Mitigation Plan. We request further explanation from NERC and WECC on
this issue. Depending upon the response and comments, the Commission
may determine it is appropriate to direct NERC and WECC to include
references in IRO-006-WECC-1 to the specific actions set forth in steps
one through three of the Mitigation Plan.
    29. Third, as discussed above, NERC's Petition explains that the
webSAS tool uses preprogrammed algorithms to calculate curtailments
and, unless the reliability coordinator actively denies the request,
webSAS approves the curtailment within five minutes.\23\ We request
additional information regarding how the webSAS program works in
relation to WECC's proposed IRO-006-WECC-1, as well as NERC's currently
effective IRO-006-4, which is incorporated by reference in the
Mitigation Plan. For example, we ask that comments address how the
webSAS program incorporates the process outlined in the Mitigation
Plan. We also seek comment regarding how differences between the
process detailed in the Mitigation Plan, which remains incorporated by
reference in NERC's IRO-006-4, and the webSAS programming could create
conflicts with respect to enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NERC Petition at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Fourth, the Commission is concerned about the possibility that
automatic approval through the webSAS tool may occur without
reliability coordinator review, as well as reliability coordinators'
inability to request curtailments, and the resultant affect on
reliability. Since, as the NERC Petition indicated, reliability
coordinators are the only entities with the wide-area view, it is the
Commission's view that it is appropriate that reliability coordinators,
as the entity with the highest level of authority to ensure reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System,\24\ have the ability to act to
ensure reliability if necessary. For example, this is consistent with a
reliability coordinator's ability to initiate relief procedures without
first receiving a request from a transmission operator as established
in NERC Reliability Standard IRO-001-1 \25\ and IRO-006-4.\26\ We
request comment on these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See NERC Glossary definition of ``reliability
coordinator.''
    \25\ Reliability Standard IRO-001-1, Requirement R3, provides
that the reliability coordinator ``shall have clear decision-making
authority to act and direct actions * * * to preserve the integrity
and reliability of the Bulk Electric System.''
    \26\ Reliability Standard IRO-006-4, Requirement R1 provides
that a reliability coordinator experiencing a potential or actual
system operating limit or interconnection reliability operator limit
``shall, with its authority and at its discretion, select one or
more procedures to provide transmission loading relief.''

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

    31. While we believe IRO-006-WECC-1 generally is acceptable and
responsive to the directives in the June 8, 2007 Order, because of the
issues noted above, we observe that maintaining both a regional
difference in the national Reliability Standard and a regional
Reliability Standard addressing unscheduled flows may be unnecessary
and confusing. We believe it might be more efficient and appropriate to
incorporate all the WECC rules and procedures with respect to
unscheduled flow mitigation in a single document. Thus, the Commission
requests comments regarding whether it should direct WECC to either (1)
revise the Mitigation Plan referenced by IRO-006-4 to incorporate all
the WECC rules and procedures, thus eliminating the need for the
regional Reliability Standard; or (2) incorporate all the WECC rules
and procedures into IRO-006-WECC-1 and TOP-007-WECC-1 while eliminating
the regional difference contained in NERC IRO-006-4.

Summary

    32. We propose to approve proposed regional Reliability Standard
IRO-006-WECC-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. We also seek comment from the
ERO, WECC, and other interested entities regarding the Commission's
specific concerns discussed above. The Commission may determine in the
Final Rule, after considering such comments, that it is appropriate to
direct WECC to develop additional modifications to IRO-006-WECC-1 and/
or to update the Mitigation Plan.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    33. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rules.\27\ 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 this proposed rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information
unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control
number. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \28\ requires each Federal
agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection
of information directed to ten or more persons, or imposed by agency
rules.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \28\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-20.
    \29\ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i), 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3), 5 CFR
1320.11. The FERC-725E reporting requirements originally were
approved by OMB on 10/10/2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to
OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA.
Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information,
whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of
provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods
for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated
information techniques.
    35. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve a new
regional Reliability Standard, IRO-006-WECC-1, which will replace
currently effective regional Reliability Standard IRO-STD-006-0
approved by the Commission on June 8, 2007.\30\ Rather than creating
entirely new requirements, the proposed regional Reliability Standard
instead modifies and improves the existing regional Reliability
Standard governing qualified transfer path unscheduled flow relief.
Thus, this proposed rulemaking imposes a minimal additional burden on
the affected entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The proposed Reliability Standard does not require responsible
entities to file information with the Commission. However, it does
require responsible entities to develop, provide, and maintain certain
information for a specified period of time, subject to inspection by
WECC. Specifically, the proposed Reliability Standard requires the
reliability coordinator and balancing authorities to document and
maintain information regarding actions taken in response to requests to
mitigate unscheduled flow. We believe our approval of WECC regional
Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 will result in a minimal increase
in reporting burdens as compared to current practices in WECC.
    37. Commission approval of proposed regional Reliability Standard
IRO-006-WECC-1 would make the standard mandatory and enforceable.
Therefore, the Commission will submit this proposed rule to OMB for
review and approval of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Title: FERC 725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western
Electric Coordinating Council.
    Action: Proposed modification to FERC-725-E.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0246.
    Respondents: Balancing Authorities and Reliability Coordinator in
the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule would approve a
revised Reliability Standard modifying the existing requirement for
entities to respond to requests for curtailment. The proposed
Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain documentation
evidencing their response to such requests.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 and
believes it to be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. These requirements conform to
the Commission's plan 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 requirements.
    Burden Estimate: The burden for the requirements in this proposed
rule follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of       Hours per     Total annual
            Data collection FERC-725E               respondents      responses       response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability                    36               1               1              36
 Coordinator-Reporting Requirement..............
35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability                    36               1               1              36
 Coordinator-Recordkeeping Requirement..........
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............              72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Total Annual hours for Collection: 36 reporting + 36
recordkeeping = 72 hours.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average
annualized cost to be $5,760, as shown below:

Reporting = 36 hours @ $120/hour = $4,320
Recordkeeping = 36 hours @ $40/hour = $1,440
Total Costs = Reporting ($4,320) + Recordkeeping ($1,440) = $5,760

    39. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments on the requirements of the
proposed rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to
OMB at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control
Number 1902-0246 and the docket number of this proposed rulemaking in
your submission.

V. Environmental Analysis

    40. 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.\31\ The
actions proposed here fall within the categorical exclusion in the
Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or
procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\32\
Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor
environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \32\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    41. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \33\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Most of the entities (i.e., reliability coordinators and balancing
authorities) to which the requirements of this Rule would apply do not
fall within the definition of small entities.\34\ The Commission
estimates that only 2-4 of the 35 balancing authorities (or a maximum
of 11.4%) are small. The proposed Reliability Standard reflects a
modification of existing requirements. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission certifies that this Rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \34\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632. According to the SBA, a small electric utility is
defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four
million MWh in the preceding year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Comment Procedures

    42. 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 December 28, 2010. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM09-19-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    43. 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.
    44. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original copy of their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    45. 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.

VIII. Document Availability

    46. 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 FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    47. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    48. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27408 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28917-28919]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13230]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80975; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Implementation Date for Trade
Modifiers When Reporting Transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities

June 20, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 12, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') 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 FINRA. FINRA filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to establish an implementation date for certain
trade modifiers required on trade reports to the Transaction Reporting
and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') involving U.S. Treasury Securities.
The proposed rule change does not make any changes to the text of FINRA
rules.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On October 18, 2016, the Commission approved a proposed rule change
to require FINRA members to report certain transactions in U.S.
Treasury Securities to TRACE.\5\ The new rules included two new trade
modifiers, which are described below, for use on certain types of
trades in U.S. Treasury Securities reported to TRACE. On October 19,
2016, FINRA announced that the reporting requirements would

be implemented beginning July 10, 2017; however, FINRA noted that,
although the two new trade modifiers could be used by members when
reporting trades beginning on July 10, 2017, FINRA would announce at a
later time when the modifiers would be required.\6\ The current
proposed rule change establishes February 5, 2018, as the
implementation date for the two new modifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79116 (October 18,
2016), 81 FR 73167 (October 24, 2016) (Notice of Filing of Amendment
No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of File No. SR-FINRA-
2016-027) (``Original Filing''). The Original Filing stated that the
implementation date for the new rules would be no later than 365
days following Commission approval. FINRA is filing the current
proposed rule change to extend the implementation date for the trade
modifiers beyond the 365-day period set forth in the Original
Filing.
    \6\ See Regulatory Notice 16-39 (October 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Original Filing amended the TRACE rules to require that
transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities, as defined in Rule 6710, be
reported to TRACE. To effectuate this requirement, the Original Filing
amended the definition of ``TRACE-Eligible Security'' to include U.S.
Treasury Securities and amended the definition of ``U.S. Treasury
Security'' to exclude savings bonds. The term ``U.S. Treasury
Securities'' therefore includes Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, as
well as separate principal and interest components of a U.S. Treasury
Security separated pursuant to the Separate Trading of Registered
Interest and Principal of Securities (STRIPS) program operated by the
Treasury Dept.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The STRIPS program is a program operated by the Treasury
Dept. under which eligible securities are authorized to be separated
into principal and interest components and transferred separately.
See 31 CFR 356.2; see generally 31 CFR 356.31 (providing details on
how the STRIPS program works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Original Filing also included amendments to Rule 6730 to
require the use of two new modifiers, when applicable, to reported
transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities. When proposing the rule,
FINRA noted that transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities that are
executed as part of larger trading strategies can often be priced away
from the current market for legitimate reasons.\8\ FINRA therefore
adopted two new modifiers to require members to indicate that
particular transactions are part of larger trading strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78359 (July 19,
2016), 81 FR 48465, 48468 (July 25, 2016) (Notice of Filing of SR-
FINRA-2016-027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the amendments require that members append a ``.B'' modifier
to a trade report if the transaction being reported is part of a series
of transactions where at least one of the transactions involves a
futures contract (e.g., a ``basis'' trade). Second, the amendments
require that members append a ``.S'' modifier to a trade report if the
transaction being reported is part of a series of transactions and may
not be priced based on the current market (e.g., a fixed price
transaction in an ``on-the-run'' security as part of a transaction in
an ``off-the-run'' security).
    FINRA noted that the use of these modifiers on TRACE trade reports
involving U.S. Treasury Securities will allow FINRA to better
understand and evaluate execution prices for specific transactions that
may otherwise appear aberrant if, for example, they are significantly
outside of the price range for that security at that time. Among other
things, these modifiers should reduce the number of false positive
results that could be generated through automated surveillance patterns
that include the price as part of the pattern.
    As noted above, the new TRACE reporting requirements for U.S.
Treasury Securities are scheduled to be implemented beginning July 10,
2017,\9\ and the proposed rule change establishes February 5, 2018, as
the implementation date for the two new modifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Regulatory Notice 16-39 (October 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date will be February 5, 2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Based on discussions with multiple FINRA members,
FINRA believes that providing members with an additional six months
after the implementation of the new TRACE requirements to report
transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities to report the trade modifiers
on applicable transactions will give them sufficient time to program
systems to comply with the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    As noted in the Original Filing, the new modifiers may introduce
additional complexity to the proposed reporting, as traders at FINRA-
member firms must apply the modifiers correctly and consistently to
ensure meaningful data collection. FINRA noted that, in discussions
with market participants, larger firms, for example, indicated that
U.S. Treasury Securities are typically traded across many desks within
the firm and this increases compliance costs because the new modifiers
need to be identified by individual traders, as they are uniquely
situated to know whether a specific trade is associated with a cross-
instrument strategy that would require the modifier.\11\ Some firms
also suggested that it may be difficult for a trader to know at the
time of a trade whether it is part of a cross-instrument strategy, thus
increasing complexity and their regulatory risk. When proposing the
requirements, FINRA noted that it planned to phase in the modifiers to
simplify the immediate implementation of the proposed rule change and
provide firms additional time to make the necessary changes to
implement the new modifiers.\12\ The proposed rule change is consistent
with these representations and provides firms with additional time
after they begin reporting transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities to
TRACE to implement the requirement to append modifiers if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78359 (July 19,
2016), 81 FR 48465, 48471 (July 25, 2016).
    \12\ See id. at 48469, n.25; see also Original Filing, supra
note 5, at 73170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. FINRA
complied with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2017-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-018. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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, 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2017-018, and should
be submitted on or before July 17, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13230 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P