Proposed Rule

71968

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules

within the Corpus Christi International
Airport, TX, Class C airspace area. This Class
E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time
will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas
Designated as an Extension to a Class D
Surface Area.

*

*

*

*

*

ASW TX E4 Corpus Christi NAS/Truax
Field, TX [Amended]
Corpus Christi NAS/Truax Field, TX
(Lat. 27°41′34″ N., long. 97°17′25″ W.)
Corpus Christi VORTAC
(Lat. 27°54′14″ N., long. 97°26′42″ W.)
Truax VORTAC
(Lat. 27°41′11″ N., long. 97°17′41″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface within 1.3 miles each side of the 012°
radial of the Truax VORTAC extending from
the 4.3-mile radius of Corpus Christi NAS/
Truax Field to 5 miles north of the airport
and within 2.1 miles each side of the 119°
radial of the Truax VORTAC extending from
the 4.3-mile radius to 6.2 miles southeast of
the airport and within 2.3 miles each side of
the 147° radial of the Corpus Christi
VORTAC extending from the 4.3-mile radius
of the airport to 6.3 miles southeast of the
airport and within 2.1 miles each side of the
329° radial of the Truax VORTAC extending
from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 6.2
miles northwest of the airport; excluding that
airspace within the Corpus Christi
International Airport, TX, Class C airspace
area.

*

*

*

*

*

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on November 14,
2008.
Roger M. Trevino,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,
ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8–28073 Filed 11–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 4
RIN 3038–AC67

Electronic Filing of Disclosure
Documents
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules.

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (Commission or
CFTC) is proposing to amend its
regulations applicable to the filing of
Disclosure Documents by commodity
pool operators (CPOs) and commodity
trading advisors (CTAs) with the
National Futures Association (NFA). In
response to a petition from NFA, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:24 Nov 25, 2008

Jkt 217001

CFTC is proposing that CPOs and CTAs
be required to file their Disclosure
Documents electronically with NFA
(Proposal).
Comments must be received on
or before December 26, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the Proposal
should be sent to David A. Stawick,
Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581. Comments may be sent by
facsimile transmission to (202) 418–
5521, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Reference should be made to ‘‘Proposal
Regarding Electronic Filing of
Disclosure Documents.’’ Comments also
may be submitted by connecting to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov and following the
comment submission instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara S. Gold, Associate Director,
Compliance and Registration Section,
Division of Clearing and Intermediary
Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Three Lafayette Centre,
1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC
20581, telephone number: (202) 418–
5450; facsimile number: (202) 418–5528;
and electronic mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:

I. Background
A. CPO and CTA Disclosure Documents
Part 4 of the Commission’s
regulations 1 governs the operations and
activities of CPOs and CTAs.
Regulations 4.21 and 4.31 respectively
require each CPO and CTA registered or
required to be registered with the
Commission to deliver a Disclosure
Document to prospective pool
participants and clients. Regulations
4.24 and 4.25 specify the informational
content of the CPO Disclosure
Document, and Regulations 4.34 and
4.35 specify the informational content
for the CTA Disclosure Document.
Regulations 4.26 and 4.36 respectively
pertain to the use, amendment and
filing of CPO and CTA Disclosure
Documents. Specifically, under
Regulations 4.26(d) and 4.36(d), the
CPO or CTA must file one copy of the
Disclosure Document, and any
supplements and amendments thereto,
with NFA.2 These regulations do not,
1 17 CFR Part 4 (2008). The Commission’s
regulations can be accessed through the CFTC’s
Web site, http://www.cftc.gov.
2 NFA is a registered futures association pursuant
to section 17 of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act),
7 U.S.C. 21 (2000). The Act also may be accessed
through the CFTC’s Web site.
The Commission previously authorized NFA to
conduct reviews of Disclosure Documents filed by

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

however, prescribe any particular
manner of filing.
B. The NFA Petition
By letter dated July 21, 2008, NFA
petitioned the Commission to amend
Regulations 4.26 and 4.36 in order to
require that CPOs and CTAs file
Disclosure Documents electronically
through NFA’s electronic Disclosure
Document filing system (Petition).3
In its Supporting Arguments, NFA
explained the reasoning behind the
Petition as follows:
Currently, while there is nothing to
prohibit a firm from filing a disclosure
document in hardcopy form, the vast
majority of CPO and CTA registrants file
disclosure documents with NFA primarily
via electronic mail due to its expediency and
convenience. While the use of electronic mail
has been a significant improvement over
hardcopy submissions in terms of filing
efficiency, the current approach still requires
a considerable amount of staffing resources
and has other disadvantages, e.g., the
inability of registrants to obtain the status of
the review of their filing without calling NFA
and the lack of a central location for storing
past filings. Accordingly, NFA has developed
a new Internet-based electronic filing system
for disclosure documents that will be
significantly less resource intensive while
also streamlining and enhancing the filing
process for registrants. In order to realize the
proposed benefits, however, registrants must
be required to file their documents
electronically through NFA’s new system.
Consequently, NFA is petitioning the
Commission to amend its regulations
accordingly.

The Commission understands that, as
with NFA’s other electronic filing
systems,4 the Disclosure Document
system was designed to be easy and
secure, such that Disclosure Documents,
supplements and amendments will be
uploaded through the system as either
Word or PDF documents. Thus,
although the CPO or CTA must have an
Internet connection to access the
system, it could use any public Internet
site, such as those available in most
public libraries. Moreover, CPOs and
CTAs will access the system using the
same designated login and password
that they currently use for NFA’s Online
CPOs and CTAs pursuant to Regulations 4.26(d)
and 4.36(d). See 62 FR 52088 (Oct. 6, 1997).
3 The Petition also adds the word ‘‘each’’ before
the existing words ‘‘trading program’’ in paragraph
(d)(1) of Regulation 4.36 to make that paragraph
read parallel to the existing phrase ‘‘each trading
program’’ in paragraph (d)(2) of Regulation 4.36.
The Commission previously authorized NFA to
accept notices of exemptions or exclusions claimed
under Part 4 and required that these notices be filed
electronically. See Id. and 72 FR 1658 (Jan. 16,
2007), respectively.
4 For example, NFA has adopted ‘‘Easyfile’’ for
introducing broker and commodity pool financial
statements required to be filed with it.

E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM

26NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Registration System—which, NFA
states, is ‘‘a well-tested authentication
model with which participating
registrants are already familiar.’’ 5 NFA
additionally states that it has been
extremely careful in the development of
the system to ensure that the database
it maintains of Disclosure Document
filings will not be compromised in any
way by unauthorized persons.
Further in this regard, NFA explains
that once CPOs and CTAs have accessed
the system:
They will be guided through the filing
process, which culminates in the electronic
transfer of the disclosure document through
the secure web-based gateway. The system
includes extensive help text to assist
registrants with their filings, and the filing
process includes a series of questions that
will assist in identifying the type of filing as
well as provide important background
information to assist NFA staff with the
analysis of the document itself. After the
document is submitted, the system will
automatically assign it to an available NFA
analyst. By accessing the system, registrants
will be able to track the status of their filing
and receive comment letters as they are
issued. Additionally, the system will serve as
an electronic filing cabinet for registrants
since it will maintain all previous filings and
related comment letters filed through the
system.

The Commission further understands,
then, that NFA’s process for the
electronic filing of Disclosure
Documents will have two components.
One of those components will require
CPOs and CTAs to electronically submit
their Disclosure Documents, as well as
any amendments and supplements
thereto. The other of these components
will require CPOs and CTAs to enter
from their Disclosure Documents certain
key information on their operations and
activities into a standardized form
accessed through NFA’s Web site.6

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

II. The Proposal
In light of the foregoing, the
Commission is proposing to amend
Regulations 4.26(d) and 4.36(d) to
require that any documents required to
be filed thereunder be filed
electronically with NFA, pursuant to
NFA’s electronic filing procedures. The
Commission wishes to emphasize,
however, that the Proposal would not
impact the delivery of Disclosure
Documents to prospective pool
5 The Commission previously delegated to NFA
registration responsibilities for CPOs, CTAs and
their associated persons. See 49 FR 39593 (Oct. 9,
1984).
6 Among other things, this key information
concerns identification of contact persons,
relationships with futures commission merchants or
introducing brokers, and the past performance
history and related data for the offered pool or
trading program.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:02 Nov 25, 2008

Jkt 217001

participants and clients, which CPOs
and CTAs could continue to provide
through hardcopy distribution via postal
mail or electronically if the intended
recipient consented thereto.7
III. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 8
requires that agencies, in proposing
rules, consider the impact of those rules
on small businesses. The Commission
previously has established certain
definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to be used
by the Commission in evaluating the
impact of its rules on such entities in
accordance with the RFA.9 With respect
to CPOs, the Commission previously has
determined that a registered CPO is not
a small entity for the purpose of the
RFA.10 As for CTAs, the Commission
previously has stated that it would
evaluate within the context of a
particular rule proposal whether all or
some affected CTAs would be
considered to be small entities and, if
so, the economic impact on them of the
particular rule.11 As noted above, the
Commission believes that the Proposal
will not place any significant economic
burdens, whether new or additional, on
CPOs and CTAs who will be affected by
it. This is because while the Proposal
will require these CPOs and CTAs to
have access to and a certain degree of
technical knowledge to file Disclosure
Documents electronically and to enter
the required key information, they will
access the system using the same
designated login and password that they
currently use for registration purposes
and they will be entering the key
information directly from their
Disclosure Documents. Thus, the
Proposal simply alters the mechanism
for filing Disclosure Documents, and
does not affect the substance or
frequency of those filings. Accordingly,
and based on section 3(a) of the RFA,12
the Acting Chairman, on behalf of the
Commission, certifies that the Proposal
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. However, the Commission
invites the public to comment on this
certification.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA) 13 imposes certain requirements
7 See Regulations 4.21(b) for CPOs and 4.31(b) for
CTAs.
8 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
9 See 47 FR 18618 (Apr. 30, 1982).
10 Id. at 18619.
11 Id. at 18620.
12 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
13 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

71969

on federal agencies (including the
Commission) in conducting or
sponsoring any collection of
information as defined by the PRA. If
adopted, the Proposal would change the
manner in which CPOs and CTAs file
Disclosure Documents with NFA; it
would not affect the substance or
frequency of those filings. The Proposal
would, however, authorize the separate
collection from CPOs and CTAs of
certain key information from the
Disclosure Documents CPOs and CTAs
would be filing electronically.
Accordingly, pursuant to the PRA, the
Commission has submitted a copy of
this section to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information. [Rules
Relating to the Operations and
Activities of Commodity Pool Operators
and Commodity Trading Advisors and
to Monthly Reporting by Futures
Commission Merchants, OMB Control
Number 3038–0005.]
The expected effect of the proposed
amended regulations will be to reduce
the burden previously approved by
OMB for this collection of information
by 239.5 hours. This is because, while
it will result in an increase in the
estimated average number of hours per
response under Regulations 4.26 and
4.36, there will be fewer CPOs and
CTAs subject to the filing requirements
of these regulations owing to increased
claims of exemption under Regulation
4.7 from Disclosure Document
requirements and under Regulations
4.13 and 4.14 from registration
altogether.
Specifically:
The burden associated with
Regulation 4.26 is expected to be
decreased by 422.4 hours:
Estimated number of respondents:
160.
Annual responses by each
respondent: 3.
Estimated average hours per response:
3.25.
Annual reporting burden: 1560.
This annual reporting burden of 1560
hours represents a decrease of 422.4
hours as a result of the proposed
amendment to Regulation 4.26.
The burden associated with
Regulation 4.36 is expected to be
increased by 182.9:
Estimated number of respondents:
450.
Annual responses by each
respondent: 1.
Estimated average hours per response:
1.85.
Annual reporting burden: 832.5.
This annual reporting burden of 832.5
hours represents an increase of 182.9

E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM

26NOP1

71970

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

hours as a result of the proposed
amendment to Regulation 4.36.
The net result of the proposed
amendments to Regulations 4.26 and
4.36, then, is a decrease in the annual
reporting burden of 239.5.
Copies of the information collection
submission to OMB are available from
the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581
(202) 418–5160. The Commission
considers comments by the public on
this proposed collection of information
in—
Evaluating whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information will have a
practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of the
Commission’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Organizations and individuals
desiring to submit comments on the
information collection should contact
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503,
Attn: Desk Officer of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning
the collection of information contained
in the Proposal between 30 and 60 days
after publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment to
the Commission on the Proposal.
C. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Section 15(a) of the Act 14 requires the
Commission to consider the costs and
benefits of its action before issuing a
new regulation under the Act. By its
terms, section 15(a) does not require the
Commission to quantify the costs and
benefits of a new regulation or to
determine whether the benefits of the
regulation outweigh its costs. Rather,
14 7

U.S.C. 19(a).

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:02 Nov 25, 2008

Jkt 217001

section 15(a) simply requires the
Commission to ‘‘consider the costs and
benefits’’ of its action.
Section 15(a) further specifies that
costs and benefits shall be evaluated in
light of five broad areas of market and
public concern, enumerated below.
Accordingly, the Commission could in
its discretion give greater weight to any
one of the five enumerated areas and
could in its discretion determine that,
notwithstanding its costs, a particular
rule was necessary or appropriate to
protect the public interest or to
effectuate any of the provisions or to
accomplish any of the purposes of the
Act.
The Proposal would amend
Regulations 4.26(d) and 4.36(d) to
require that CPOs and CTAs file
Disclosure Documents, and any
supplements and amendments thereto,
electronically with NFA. The
Commission is considering the costs
and benefits of the Proposal in light of
the specific provisions of section 15(a)
as follows:
1. Protection of market participants
and the public. The Proposal should not
affect the protection of market
participants and the public, as it
provides an alternate method of filing
Disclosure Documents, but does not
alter the character or frequency of those
filings.
2. Efficiency and competition. The
Commission anticipates that the
Proposal will benefit efficiency by
permitting NFA to streamline its process
for receiving and reviewing Disclosure
Document filings. Thus, the
Commission considers the Proposal as
benefiting efficiency and not impacting
competition.
3. Financial integrity of futures
markets and price discovery. The
Proposal should have no effect, from the
standpoint of imposing costs or creating
benefits, on the financial integrity of
futures markets or the price discovery
function of such markets.
4. Sound risk management practices.
The Proposal should have no effect,
from the standpoint of imposing costs or
creating benefits, on sound risk
management practices.
5. Other public interest
considerations. The Commission
believes that the Proposal is beneficial
in that it should streamline the
timeliness of filing, review and delivery
of, and electronic accessibility to,
Disclosure Documents.
After considering these factors, the
Commission has determined to propose
the amendments to Regulations 4.26(d)
and 4.36(d) discussed above. The
Commission invites public comment on
its application of the cost-benefit

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

provision. Commenters also are invited
to submit any data that they may have
quantifying the costs and benefits of the
Proposal with their comment letters.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 4
Advertising, Brokers, Commodity
futures, Commodity pool operators,
Commodity trading advisors, Consumer
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, 17 CFR Chapter I is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 4—COMMODITY POOL
OPERATORS AND COMMODITY
TRADING ADVISORS
1. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6b, 6c, 6l, 6m,
6n, 6o, 12a, and 23.

2. Revise paragraph (d) of § 4.26 to
read as follows:
§ 4.26 Use, Amendment and Filing of
Disclosure Document.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) Except as provided by § 4.8:
(1) The commodity pool operator
must electronically file with the
National Futures Association, pursuant
to the electronic filing procedures of the
National Futures Association, the
Disclosure Document and, where used,
profile document for each pool that it
operates or that it intends to operate not
less than 21 calendar days prior to the
date the pool operator first intends to
deliver such Document or documents to
a prospective participant in the pool;
and
(2) The commodity pool operator
must electronically file with the
National Futures Association, pursuant
to the electronic filing procedures of the
National Futures Association, the
subsequent amendments to the
Disclosure Document and, where used,
profile document for each pool that it
operates or that it intends to operate
within 21 calendar days of the date
upon which the pool operator first
knows or has reason to know of the
defect requiring the amendment.
3. Revise paragraph (d) of § 4.36 to
read as follows:
§ 4.36 Use, amendment and filing of
Disclosure Document.

*

*
*
*
*
(d)(1) The commodity trading advisor
must electronically file with the
National Futures Association, pursuant
to the electronic filing procedures of the
National Futures Association, the
Disclosure Document for each trading
program that it offers or that it intends
to offer not less than 21 calendar days

E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM

26NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
prior to the date the trading advisor first
intends to deliver the Document to a
prospective client in the trading
program; and
(2) The commodity trading advisor
must electronically file with the
National Futures Association, pursuant
to the electronic filing procedures of the
National Futures Association, the
subsequent amendments to the
Disclosure Document for each trading
program that it offers or that it intends
to offer within 21 calendar days of the
date upon which the trading advisor
first knows or has reason to know of the
defect requiring the amendment.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
21, 2008 by the Commission.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–28177 Filed 11–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM08–16–000]

Electric Reliability Organization
Interpretations of Specific
Requirements of Frequency Response
and Bias and Voltage and Reactive
Control Reliability Standards

I. Background

Issued November 20, 2008.

Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission proposes to:
approve NERC’s proposed interpretation
of certain specific requirements of one
Commission-approved Reliability
Standard, BAL–003–0, Frequency
Response and Bias; and remand NERC’s
proposed interpretation of VAR–001–1,
Voltage and Reactive Control, for
reconsideration consistent with this
rulemaking.
DATES:

Comments are due December 26,

2008.
You may submit comments,
identified by docket number by any of
the following methods:
• Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov.
Documents created electronically using
word processing software should be
filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters
unable to file comments electronically

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS

ADDRESSES:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

18:24 Nov 25, 2008

must mail or hand deliver an original
and 14 copies of their comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Harwood (Technical
Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–6125,
[email protected].
Richard M. Wartchow (Legal
Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–8744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Joseph T.
Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly,
Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and
Jon Wellinghoff.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission proposes to
approve the interpretation proposed by
the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) of certain specific
requirements of Commission-approved
Reliability Standard BAL–003–0,
Frequency Response and Bias, but
remand NERC’s proposed interpretation
of Reliability Standard VAR–001–1,
Voltage and Reactive Control, for
additional clarification.1

Jkt 217001

A. EPAct 2005 and Mandatory
Reliability Standards
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to
develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, which are subject
to Commission review and approval.
Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO,
subject to Commission oversight, or by
the Commission independently.2
3. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA,
the Commission established a process to
select and certify an ERO 3 and,
1 The Commission is not proposing any new or
modified text to its regulations. As set forth in 18
CFR part 40, proposed Reliability Standards will
not become effective until approved by the
Commission, and the ERO must post on its Web site
each effective Reliability Standard. The proposed
interpretations would assist entities in complying
with the Reliability Standards.
2 See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
3 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric
Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No.
672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

71971

subsequently, certified NERC as the
ERO.4 On April 4, 2006, as modified on
August 28, 2006, NERC submitted to the
Commission a petition seeking approval
of 107 proposed Reliability Standards.
On March 16, 2007, the Commission
issued a final rule, Order No. 693,
approving 83 of these 107 Reliability
Standards and directing other action
related to these Reliability Standards.5
In addition, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission
directed NERC to develop modifications
to 56 of the 83 approved Reliability
Standards.6
4. NERC’s Rules of Procedure provide
that a person that is ‘‘directly and
materially affected’’ by Bulk-Power
System reliability may request an
interpretation of a Reliability Standard.7
The ERO’s ‘‘standards process manager’’
will assemble a team with relevant
expertise to address the requested
interpretation and also form a ballot
pool. NERC’s Rules provide that, within
45 days, the team will draft an
interpretation of the Reliability
Standard, with subsequent balloting. If
approved by ballot, the interpretation is
appended to the Reliability Standard
and filed with the applicable regulatory
authority for regulatory approval.8
B. NERC Filing
5. On July 28, 2008, NERC submitted
a Petition for Approval of Formal
Interpretations to Reliability Standards
(Petition), seeking Commission approval
of interpretations of two Commissionapproved Reliability Standards: BAL–
003–0, Frequency Response and Bias,
Requirements R2 and R5; and VAR–
001–1, Voltage and Reactive Control,
Requirement R4.
4 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), appeal docketed sub nom.
Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, No. 06–1426 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29,
2006).
5 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120
FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
6 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5). Section 215(d)(5) provides,
‘‘The Commission * * * may order the Electric
Reliability Organization to submit to the
Commission a proposed reliability standard or a
modification to a reliability standard that addresses
a specific matter if the Commission considers such
a new or modified reliability standard appropriate
to carry out this section.’’
7 NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A,
Reliability Standards Development Procedure,
Version 6.1, at 26–27 (2007).
8 We note that, while the NERC Board of Trustees
approved the interpretations of the Reliability
Standards submitted by NERC for approval in this
proceeding, Appendix 3A of NERC’s Rules of
Procedure is silent on the need for NERC Board of
Trustees’ approval of interpretations before they are
filed. NERC’s Rules of Procedure should expressly
require such approval.

E:\FR\FM\26NOP1.SGM

26NOP1