{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"samples": [{"hash": "1X4FpHp3v4T", "uri": "/contracts/1X4FpHp3v4T#commission-determination", "label": "Terms and Conditions for Publishers", "score": 33.6603240967, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "qualifying-purchases", "type": "definition", "offset": [48, 68]}, {"key": "during-the-term", "type": "clause", "offset": [79, 94]}, {"key": "terms-of-this-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [110, 133]}, {"key": "qualifying-link", "type": "definition", "offset": [198, 213]}, {"key": "the-program-manager", "type": "definition", "offset": [294, 313]}, {"key": "best-buy", "type": "definition", "offset": [383, 391]}, {"key": "shipping-address", "type": "definition", "offset": [415, 431]}, {"key": "billing-address", "type": "definition", "offset": [457, 472]}, {"key": "in-the-case", "type": "clause", "offset": [477, 488]}, {"key": "an-eligible", "type": "clause", "offset": [517, 528]}, {"key": "performed-by", "type": "clause", "offset": [542, 554]}, {"key": "in-canada", "type": "definition", "offset": [566, 575]}, {"key": "full-payment", "type": "clause", "offset": [619, 631]}, {"key": "bad-debt", "type": "clause", "offset": [655, 663]}, {"key": "for-the-avoidance-of-doubt", "type": "clause", "offset": [686, 712]}, {"key": "without-limitation", "type": "clause", "offset": [754, 772]}, {"key": "returns-and-cancellations", "type": "clause", "offset": [995, 1020]}, {"key": "sole-discretion", "type": "definition", "offset": [1113, 1128]}, {"key": "eligible-products", "type": "definition", "offset": [1148, 1165]}, {"key": "product-categories", "type": "definition", "offset": [1167, 1185]}, {"key": "percentage-rates", "type": "clause", "offset": [1219, 1235]}, {"key": "number-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1246, 1255]}, {"key": "permitted-return", "type": "definition", "offset": [1256, 1272]}, {"key": "at-any-time", "type": "clause", "offset": [1278, 1289]}, {"key": "effective-as-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1311, 1330]}, {"key": "the-dashboard", "type": "clause", "offset": [1359, 1372]}, {"key": "guarantee-a", "type": "definition", "offset": [1387, 1398]}, {"key": "minimum-or-maximum", "type": "clause", "offset": [1399, 1417]}, {"key": "payment-amount", "type": "definition", "offset": [1437, 1451]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [1493, 1501]}, {"key": "monthly-net-sales", "type": "definition", "offset": [1506, 1523]}, {"key": "the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [1544, 1558]}, {"key": "product-category", "type": "clause", "offset": [1595, 1611]}, {"key": "in-consultation-with", "type": "definition", "offset": [1758, 1778]}, {"key": "final-and-binding", "type": "clause", "offset": [1811, 1828]}, {"key": "in-the-event", "type": "clause", "offset": [1833, 1845]}, {"key": "in-this-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [1887, 1904]}, {"key": "use-of-links", "type": "clause", "offset": [1919, 1931]}, {"key": "licensed-materials", "type": "clause", "offset": [1936, 1954]}, {"key": "not-limited", "type": "clause", "offset": [1970, 1981]}, {"key": "certain-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [2000, 2019]}, {"key": "unpaid-commissions", "type": "clause", "offset": [2087, 2105]}, {"key": "to-pay", "type": "clause", "offset": [2184, 2190]}, {"key": "product-or-service", "type": "clause", "offset": [2223, 2241]}, {"key": "the-sale", "type": "clause", "offset": [2248, 2256]}, {"key": "related-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2322, 2332]}, {"key": "the-website", "type": "clause", "offset": [2359, 2370]}, {"key": "associated-with", "type": "definition", "offset": [2383, 2398]}, {"key": "payable-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2447, 2457]}, {"key": "by-this-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2531, 2548]}, {"key": "your-account", "type": "definition", "offset": [2726, 2738]}], "snippet": "a. You are only eligible to earn commissions on Qualifying Purchases occurring during the Term subject to the terms of this Agreement that are: (i) made via the intentional click by a Customer of a Qualifying Link during an active Session that can be tracked and reported on through the use of the Program Manager's tracking technology and/or methodology; (ii) actually shipped by a Best Buy Property to a Canadian shipping address and billed to a Canadian billing address; or in the case of services, if included as an Eligible Product, are performed by Geek Squad in Canada; and (iii) for which Best Buy has received full payment that is not subject to bad debt or other chargebacks. For the avoidance of doubt, Qualifying Purchases shall not include, without limitation, any orders made by a Customer (i) in-store; or (ii) through Best Buy\u2019s Quick & Easy Store Pickup process. We will not owe you any commissions for orders that are cancelled or returned, and we may deduct and exclude these returns and cancellations from commissions calculations on an ongoing basis, at least monthly.\nb. Best Buy may in its sole discretion modify the list of Eligible Products, Product Categories (including associated commission percentage rates), and the number of permitted Return Days at any time. The changes will be effective as of the date they are posted within the Dashboard.\nc. We do not guarantee a minimum or maximum monthly commission payment amount. We will calculate commission payment(s) based on (i) Monthly Net Sales; multiplied by (ii) the commission percentage rate for each applicable Product Category as set forth in the Dashboard.\nd. All determinations of Qualifying Purchases and whether a commission payment is payable will be made by Best Buy in consultation with the Program Manager and will be final and binding.\ne. In the event you fail to abide by the terms set forth in this Agreement governing the use of Links and Licensed Materials (including but not limited to the posting of certain information to the disadvantage of Best Buy on your Properties), we may reduce unpaid commissions otherwise payable under this section as follows:\n(i) Best Buy is not required to pay any commissions on sales of any product or service where the sale was completed through an error or anomaly on a Best Buy Property related to any information posted on the website or property associated with the Qualifying Link.\n(ii) Commissions otherwise payable to a Publisher for any month will be forfeited where information prohibited by this Agreement is posted to the website or property associated with the Qualifying Link, regardless of whether any Qualifying Purchases occurred, and we may, in our sole discretion, terminate your account immediately.", "size": 5, "hash": "d362414a8fd79c0824679e8e238bc585", "id": 1}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "dUVlCuJJGks", "uri": "/contracts/dUVlCuJJGks#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "9qN1jQHh6tw", "uri": "/contracts/9qN1jQHh6tw#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "we-accept", "type": "definition", "offset": [0, 9]}, {"key": "delegation-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [59, 79]}, {"key": "subject-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [81, 91]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [103, 118]}, {"key": "modifications-to-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [135, 155]}, {"key": "exhibit-d", "type": "definition", "offset": [161, 170]}, {"key": "voting-requirements", "type": "clause", "offset": [202, 221]}, {"key": "applicable-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [222, 235]}, {"key": "hearing-body", "type": "definition", "offset": [245, 257]}, {"key": "will-apply-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [537, 550]}, {"key": "compliance-committee", "type": "definition", "offset": [555, 575]}, {"key": "applies-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [669, 679]}, {"key": "actions-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [684, 698]}, {"key": "the-hearing", "type": "clause", "offset": [894, 905]}, {"key": "a-majority", "type": "definition", "offset": [941, 951]}, {"key": "votes-cast", "type": "definition", "offset": [959, 969]}, {"key": "to-amend", "type": "definition", "offset": [1104, 1112]}], "snippet": "We accept NERC\u2019s and NPCC\u2019s proposed revisions to the NPCC Delegation Agreement, subject to revisions. With respect to NPCC\u2019s proposed modifications to the NPCC Exhibit D, at section 2.0, regarding the voting requirements applicable to the NPCC hearing body, it remains unclear whether the corollary requirement that no two stakeholder sectors may control, and no single stakeholder sector may veto, a decision by the NPCC board or any of its committees (a requirement set forth under the NPCC Delegation Agreement, at section 2(a)(i)), will apply to the compliance committee\u2019s actions as a hearing body. Accordingly, we direct NPCC to clarify whether this requirement applies to the actions of the compliance committee as a hearing body or justify why it should not. We observe that sections VII.E and VIII of the NPCC bylaws are unclear as to whether the compliance committee, when acting as the hearing body, will render its decisions by a majority of the votes cast by a quorum. To that extent, the NPCC bylaws may be inconsistent with section 2.0 of the NPCC Exhibit D. Accordingly, we require NPCC to amend its bylaws to remove this ambiguity.", "size": 4, "hash": "e5b2acdff7c0bdba3fad27627f476c09", "id": 2}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "dUVlCuJJGks", "uri": "/contracts/dUVlCuJJGks#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "9qN1jQHh6tw", "uri": "/contracts/9qN1jQHh6tw#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "we-accept", "type": "definition", "offset": [0, 9]}, {"key": "changes-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [36, 50]}, {"key": "delegation-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [55, 75]}, {"key": "subject-to-revision", "type": "clause", "offset": [77, 96]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [98, 113]}, {"key": "the-proposed", "type": "clause", "offset": [114, 126]}, {"key": "exhibit-e", "type": "definition", "offset": [139, 148]}, {"key": "initiation-fees", "type": "clause", "offset": [221, 236]}, {"key": "new-members", "type": "definition", "offset": [241, 252]}, {"key": "membership-fee", "type": "definition", "offset": [292, 306]}, {"key": "commission-approval", "type": "definition", "offset": [358, 377]}, {"key": "regional-entity", "type": "clause", "offset": [383, 398]}, {"key": "rule-change", "type": "definition", "offset": [399, 410]}, {"key": "provide-a", "type": "definition", "offset": [507, 516]}, {"key": "for-non", "type": "clause", "offset": [524, 531]}, {"key": "for-statutory", "type": "clause", "offset": [613, 626]}, {"key": "section-58", "type": "clause", "offset": [667, 678]}, {"key": "board-of-directors", "type": "definition", "offset": [741, 759]}, {"key": "delegated-functions", "type": "definition", "offset": [795, 814]}, {"key": "the-requirements", "type": "clause", "offset": [978, 994]}], "snippet": "We accept NERC\u2019s and MRO\u2019s proposed changes to the MRO Delegation Agreement, subject to revision. With respect to the proposed revision at Exhibit E, section 5 (i.e., the language stating that the MRO board may establish initiation fees for new members), we clarify that MRO may not charge a membership fee of any kind unless that fee has been submitted for Commission approval as a Regional Entity Rule change and may only take effect upon Commission approval.39 Exhibit E, section 5 states that MRO shall provide a budget for non-statutory activities to NERC at the same time that it submits to NERC its budget for statutory activities. However, the MRO bylaws, at section 5.8, address this requirement only in part, providing that \u201c[t]he board of directors shall propose to NERC a budget for delegated functions exercised by [MRO].\u201d Given the potential inconsistency between these provisions, we clarify that the MRO bylaws, at section 5.8, will be construed consistent with the requirements of Exhibit E, section 5.", "size": 4, "hash": "7b9592b9d5c744ac99cfd5c4845568fa", "id": 3}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "dUVlCuJJGks", "uri": "/contracts/dUVlCuJJGks#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "17TmwOjm74O", "uri": "/contracts/17TmwOjm74O#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 14]}, {"key": "changes-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [41, 55]}, {"key": "delegation-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [61, 81]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [83, 98]}, {"key": "designation-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [106, 120]}, {"key": "compliance-committee", "type": "definition", "offset": [131, 151]}, {"key": "hearing-body", "type": "definition", "offset": [182, 194]}, {"key": "section-75", "type": "clause", "offset": [209, 220]}, {"key": "the-board", "type": "clause", "offset": [254, 263]}, {"key": "ad-hoc-committees", "type": "definition", "offset": [297, 314]}, {"key": "technical-experts", "type": "clause", "offset": [318, 335]}, {"key": "to-advise", "type": "definition", "offset": [336, 345]}, {"key": "technical-issues", "type": "definition", "offset": [366, 382]}, {"key": "another-entity", "type": "definition", "offset": [454, 468]}, {"key": "committee-review", "type": "definition", "offset": [504, 520]}, {"key": "compliance-finding", "type": "definition", "offset": [523, 541]}, {"key": "assist-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [603, 613]}], "snippet": "The Commission accepts NERC\u2019s and SERC\u2019s changes to the SERC Delegation Agreement. With respect to SERC\u2019s designation of its board compliance committee, or a subset of it, as SERC\u2019s hearing body, we note that section 7.5 of the SERC bylaws provides that the board compliance committee may appoint ad hoc committees of technical experts to advise it on compliance or technical issues, among other things. Section 7.5 also provides that \u201c[e]ach member (or another entity) that requests that the Compliance Committee review a compliance finding against it may request that an ad hoc committee be formed to assist the Compliance Committee in its review.\u201d", "size": 4, "hash": "9d7ff3993247ba987018d20ff6c13b81", "id": 4}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "dUVlCuJJGks", "uri": "/contracts/dUVlCuJJGks#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "we-accept", "type": "definition", "offset": [0, 9]}, {"key": "changes-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [37, 51]}, {"key": "delegation-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [57, 77]}, {"key": "subject-to-revision", "type": "clause", "offset": [79, 98]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [100, 115]}, {"key": "the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [116, 130]}, {"key": "availability-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [160, 175]}, {"key": "the-attorney", "type": "clause", "offset": [176, 188]}, {"key": "client-privilege", "type": "clause", "offset": [189, 205]}, {"key": "amendment-of-paragraph", "type": "clause", "offset": [296, 318]}, {"key": "hearing-procedures", "type": "definition", "offset": [336, 354]}, {"key": "to-ensure", "type": "clause", "offset": [368, 377]}, {"key": "compliance-staff", "type": "definition", "offset": [388, 404]}, {"key": "obligation-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [407, 420]}, {"key": "to-assume", "type": "clause", "offset": [525, 534]}, {"key": "the-pro-forma", "type": "definition", "offset": [722, 735]}, {"key": "general-statement", "type": "clause", "offset": [792, 809]}, {"key": "inspection-and-copying", "type": "clause", "offset": [861, 883]}, {"key": "attorney-work-product", "type": "definition", "offset": [955, 976]}, {"key": "deletion-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1005, 1016]}, {"key": "language-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1028, 1039]}, {"key": "current-version", "type": "clause", "offset": [1209, 1224]}, {"key": "in-addition", "type": "clause", "offset": [1344, 1355]}, {"key": "the-concept", "type": "clause", "offset": [1415, 1426]}, {"key": "exculpatory-evidence", "type": "definition", "offset": [1660, 1680]}, {"key": "contained-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [1681, 1693]}, {"key": "fundamental-matters", "type": "clause", "offset": [1855, 1874]}, {"key": "relating-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [1875, 1886]}, {"key": "new-section", "type": "clause", "offset": [2032, 2043]}, {"key": "certain-documents", "type": "clause", "offset": [2111, 2128]}, {"key": "confidential-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [2140, 2164]}, {"key": "the-definition-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [2196, 2213]}, {"key": "rules-of-procedure", "type": "definition", "offset": [2270, 2288]}, {"key": "to-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [2395, 2409]}, {"key": "also-note", "type": "definition", "offset": [2474, 2483]}, {"key": "hearing-officer", "type": "definition", "offset": [2566, 2581]}, {"key": "leave-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [2610, 2618]}, {"key": "for-good-cause", "type": "clause", "offset": [2694, 2708]}, {"key": "docket-no", "type": "clause", "offset": [2790, 2799]}, {"key": "provide-documents", "type": "clause", "offset": [2864, 2881]}, {"key": "to-submit", "type": "definition", "offset": [2907, 2916]}, {"key": "compliance-filing", "type": "clause", "offset": [2926, 2943]}, {"key": "a-proposal", "type": "clause", "offset": [2944, 2954]}, {"key": "to-funding", "type": "clause", "offset": [3003, 3013]}, {"key": "section-3", "type": "definition", "offset": [3059, 3068]}, {"key": "exhibit-e", "type": "definition", "offset": [3072, 3081]}, {"key": "and-funding", "type": "clause", "offset": [3136, 3147]}], "snippet": "We accept NERC\u2019s and WECC\u2019s proposed changes to the WECC Delegation Agreement, subject to revision. With respect to the Commission\u2019s requirements regarding the availability of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, we accept, in part, NERC and WECC\u2019s statement that no amendment of paragraph 1.4.1(b) of WECC hearing procedures is necessary to ensure that WECC compliance staff\u2019s obligation to produce evidence is subject to and limited by any applicable privilege. However, this statement appears to assume that the only privileges that could be asserted by WECC compliance staff are the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. In contrast, the comparable provision of the pro forma hearing procedures, paragraph 1.5.7(b)(1)(A), is a more general statement that compliance staff may withhold a document from inspection and copying by a respondent if \u201cthe document is privileged to staff or constitutes attorney work product of Staff\u2019s counsel.\u201d WECC\u2019s deletion of the former language of paragraph 1.4.1(b)(3), which would have served as a means for WECC enforcement staff to assert any other privilege that might apply, brings into question whether WECC\u2019s current version of paragraph 1.4.1(b) would recognize any other privilege that WECC compliance staff might successfully assert.59 121. In addition, WECC\u2019s revisions to section 1.4.1(b) eliminate completely the concept codified in paragraph 1.5.7(b)(2) of the pro forma hearing procedures that, in the absence of an assertion of privilege, no circumstance that would otherwise protect a document from disclosure authorizes compliance staff to withhold exculpatory evidence contained in the document. Thus, WECC\u2019s revisions appear to be inconsistent with the pro forma hearing procedures on this matter. Our strong preference is for consistency in fundamental matters relating to compliance hearings before all Regional Entities and NERC. To resolve the inconsistencies discussed above with respect to the bases on 59 WECC\u2019s new section 1.4.1(b)(3) could protect from disclosure by WECC compliance staff certain documents containing confidential information. However, it is not clear that the definition of \u201cconfidential information\u201d in section 1501(1) of NERC\u2019s Rules of Procedure would cover privileges that WECC compliance staff could assert. That definition does not refer explicitly to information in documents for which an evidentiary privilege is asserted. We also note that, while section 1.5.7(b)(1)(D) of the pro forma hearing procedures provides a hearing officer residual authority to grant leave to compliance staff to withhold documents that are not relevant, or otherwise for good cause shown, WECC\u2019s proposed hearing procedures do not include an analogous provision. Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -41- which compliance staff may withhold or provide documents, we direct NERC and WECC to submit in their compliance filing a proposal to reconcile these matters.60 122. With respect to funding matters, we accept WECC\u2019s proposal to revise section 3 of Exhibit E to reflect its arrangements for invoicing, collecting and funding its statutory activities.", "size": 4, "hash": "82e9bb545bc27cb1d61ad0c159302315", "id": 5}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "17TmwOjm74O", "uri": "/contracts/17TmwOjm74O#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "we-accept", "type": "definition", "offset": [4, 13]}, {"key": "proposed-amendments", "type": "definition", "offset": [21, 40]}, {"key": "with-respect-to-\u2587", "type": "clause", "offset": [79, 96]}, {"key": "changes-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [111, 121]}, {"key": "our-commitment", "type": "clause", "offset": [145, 159]}, {"key": "order-to-work", "type": "definition", "offset": [176, 189]}, {"key": "to-develop", "type": "definition", "offset": [249, 259]}, {"key": "applicable-governmental-authority", "type": "definition", "offset": [322, 355]}, {"key": "outside-the-united-states", "type": "clause", "offset": [356, 381]}, {"key": "information-from", "type": "clause", "offset": [399, 415]}, {"key": "registered-entity", "type": "clause", "offset": [438, 455]}, {"key": "for-purposes-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [456, 471]}, {"key": "docket-no", "type": "clause", "offset": [590, 599]}, {"key": "in-canada", "type": "definition", "offset": [681, 690]}, {"key": "notification-procedures", "type": "clause", "offset": [784, 807]}, {"key": "proposed-disclosure", "type": "definition", "offset": [828, 847]}, {"key": "related-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [870, 889]}, {"key": "notice-procedures", "type": "clause", "offset": [947, 964]}, {"key": "public-disclosure", "type": "definition", "offset": [1015, 1032]}, {"key": "for-entities", "type": "definition", "offset": [1076, 1088]}, {"key": "reliability-standards", "type": "clause", "offset": [1100, 1121]}, {"key": "description-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1216, 1230]}, {"key": "nature-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1256, 1269]}, {"key": "compliance-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [1283, 1305]}, {"key": "authority-and", "type": "clause", "offset": [1363, 1376]}, {"key": "the-procedures", "type": "definition", "offset": [1377, 1391]}, {"key": "to-ensure", "type": "clause", "offset": [1407, 1416]}, {"key": "our-regulations", "type": "definition", "offset": [1473, 1488]}, {"key": "authority-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [1593, 1605]}, {"key": "to-disclose", "type": "definition", "offset": [1624, 1635]}, {"key": "specific-procedures", "type": "clause", "offset": [1661, 1680]}, {"key": "any-non", "type": "clause", "offset": [1719, 1726]}, {"key": "acceptance-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1798, 1811]}, {"key": "amendments-to-section-34", "type": "clause", "offset": [1819, 1844]}, {"key": "transfer-information", "type": "definition", "offset": [1898, 1918]}, {"key": "subject-to-section", "type": "clause", "offset": [2154, 2172]}, {"key": "to-submit", "type": "definition", "offset": [2201, 2210]}, {"key": "compliance-filing", "type": "clause", "offset": [2235, 2252]}, {"key": "staff-requests", "type": "clause", "offset": [2409, 2423]}, {"key": "to-provide", "type": "clause", "offset": [2429, 2439]}, {"key": "disclosure-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2557, 2570]}, {"key": "the-governmental", "type": "clause", "offset": [2624, 2640]}, {"key": "other-applicable-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [2668, 2688]}, {"key": "possible-violation", "type": "clause", "offset": [2929, 2947]}, {"key": "definition-of-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [3041, 3056]}, {"key": "compliance-violation", "type": "definition", "offset": [3057, 3077]}, {"key": "regional-entity", "type": "clause", "offset": [3400, 3415]}, {"key": "entering-into", "type": "clause", "offset": [3620, 3633]}, {"key": "intergovernmental-agreements", "type": "clause", "offset": [3634, 3662]}, {"key": "exchange-compliance", "type": "clause", "offset": [3666, 3685]}, {"key": "information-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [3694, 3708]}, {"key": "reciprocal-basis", "type": "definition", "offset": [3711, 3727]}, {"key": "will-apply-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [4019, 4032]}, {"key": "compliance-monitoring", "type": "definition", "offset": [4161, 4182]}, {"key": "enforcement-activities", "type": "clause", "offset": [4186, 4208]}, {"key": "a-registered", "type": "clause", "offset": [4249, 4261]}, {"key": "a-portion", "type": "definition", "offset": [4272, 4281]}, {"key": "power-system", "type": "clause", "offset": [4294, 4306]}, {"key": "the-applicable", "type": "clause", "offset": [4318, 4332]}, {"key": "provisions-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [4431, 4445]}, {"key": "relates-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [4600, 4610]}, {"key": "notice-to-the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [4665, 4689]}, {"key": "transfers-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [4937, 4949]}, {"key": "pursuant-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [4992, 5007]}, {"key": "the-conditions", "type": "clause", "offset": [5017, 5031]}, {"key": "transfer-of-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [5568, 5591]}, {"key": "directly-related-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [5604, 5623]}, {"key": "compliance-with-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [5655, 5672]}, {"key": "the-phrase", "type": "definition", "offset": [5754, 5764]}, {"key": "the-third-sentence", "type": "clause", "offset": [5787, 5805]}, {"key": "deletion-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [5857, 5868]}, {"key": "meaning-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [5902, 5912]}, {"key": "relating-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [6012, 6023]}, {"key": "governmental-entity", "type": "definition", "offset": [6079, 6098]}, {"key": "for-the-united-states", "type": "clause", "offset": [6099, 6120]}, {"key": "mexican-entities", "type": "definition", "offset": [6583, 6599]}, {"key": "similar-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [6796, 6806]}, {"key": "notices-and-reports", "type": "clause", "offset": [6858, 6877]}, {"key": "compliance-matters", "type": "clause", "offset": [6956, 6974]}, {"key": "section-341", "type": "clause", "offset": [7029, 7042]}, {"key": "provide-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [7105, 7116]}, {"key": "section-51", "type": "clause", "offset": [7242, 7253]}, {"key": "for-example", "type": "clause", "offset": [7255, 7266]}, {"key": "notice-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [7324, 7333]}, {"key": "alleged-violation", "type": "clause", "offset": [7334, 7351]}, {"key": "issued-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [7352, 7361]}, {"key": "canadian-entity", "type": "definition", "offset": [7364, 7379]}, {"key": "with-jurisdiction", "type": "definition", "offset": [7426, 7443]}, {"key": "the-canadian", "type": "clause", "offset": [7449, 7461]}, {"key": "the-notice", "type": "clause", "offset": [7518, 7528]}, {"key": "in-advance", "type": "clause", "offset": [7547, 7557]}, {"key": "receipt-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [7575, 7585]}, {"key": "the-transfer", "type": "clause", "offset": [7635, 7647]}, {"key": "canadian-authority", "type": "definition", "offset": [7666, 7684]}, {"key": "other-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [7688, 7697]}, {"key": "canadian-jurisdiction", "type": "definition", "offset": [7705, 7726]}, {"key": "other-provisions", "type": "clause", "offset": [7784, 7800]}, {"key": "canadian-compliance", "type": "clause", "offset": [7862, 7881]}, {"key": "approval-by", "type": "clause", "offset": [7914, 7925]}, {"key": "the-relevant", "type": "clause", "offset": [7926, 7938]}, {"key": "canadian-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [8027, 8039]}, {"key": "in-addition", "type": "clause", "offset": [8041, 8052]}, {"key": "the-information", "type": "clause", "offset": [8207, 8222]}], "snippet": "28. We accept NERC\u2019s proposed amendments to CMEP section 3.4, with conditions. With respect to \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2019s proposed changes to section 3.4, we repeat our commitment in the March 21 Order to work together with Canadian and Mexican reliability authorities to develop procedures under which the Commission receives notice that an Applicable Governmental Authority outside the United States wishes to obtain information from or about a U.S.-based Registered Entity for purposes of conducting an investigation and, conversely, that appropriate Canadian or Mexican authorities receive notice that the Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -12- Commission seeks information about an entity registered in Canada or Mexico for the same purpose.\n29. NERC\u2019s revisions to CMEP section 3.4 include appropriate notification procedures with respect to the proposed disclosure by NERC of compliance-related information it receives. As we directed in the March 21 Order, these notice procedures require NERC to address how it would protect from public disclosure non-public, compliance-related information for entities subject to Reliability Standards, whether registered in Canada, Mexico or the United States.\n30. NERC properly includes in the description of its proposed notices the nature of the U.S.\u2013related compliance information NERC would disclose to a Canadian or Mexican reliability authority and the procedures NERC would use to ensure that its disclosure complies with section 39.7(b)(4) of our regulations. In this regard, we require that NERC identify in these notices each particular Applicable Governmental Authority to which it proposes to disclose this information and the specific procedures for protecting from public disclosure any non-public compliance information that would be transferred. Moreover, our acceptance of NERC\u2019s amendments to section 3.4 does not constitute our prior permission for NERC to transfer information obtained in investigations about U.S. entities to Canadian or Mexican reliability authorities. We note, in this regard, that NERC has not yet explained how it would protect from public disclosure non-public U.S. compliance information subject to section 39.7(b)(4). We require NERC to submit this explanation in its compliance filing.\n31. We also agree that the reciprocal procedure NERC proposes to notify a Canadian or Mexican Applicable Governmental Authority that the Commission or its staff requests NERC to provide compliance-related information for an entity within that authority\u2019s jurisdiction appropriately addresses how NERC\u2019s disclosure of this information to the Commission would comply with the governmental authority\u2019s regulations or other applicable law concerning disclosure of non-public compliance information.\n32. We note that the FPA and Part 1b of the Commission\u2019s regulations, not the CMEP, govern the procedures for an investigation that the Commission or its staff may commence into a possible violation of a Reliability Standard. Such an investigation would not necessarily fit within the CMEP\u2019s definition of a Compliance Violation Investigation. Therefore, we direct NERC to substitute \u201cinvestigation\u201d for \u201cCompliance Violation Investigation\u201d when NERC refers to a Commission investigation in section 3.4.\n33. We stress that the new notice procedures in section 3.4 cover only the international transfer of compliance-related information that NERC or a Regional Entity, through NERC, would disclose to an Applicable Governmental Authority. Nothing in the CMEP Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -13- prevents the Commission and Canadian and Mexican reliability authorities from entering into intergovernmental agreements to exchange compliance-related information on a reciprocal basis that recognizes the international nature of NERC and affected Regional Entities and their roles in enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards.18\n34. We accept NERC\u2019s amendments to CMEP section 2.0, subject to conditions and the following observations. First, we note that revised section 2.0 will apply to NERC\u2019s disclosure to a Canadian or Mexican reliability authority of U.S. compliance-related information developed by any of the compliance monitoring or enforcement activities set forth in the CMEP that \u201cpertains to a Registered Entity or a portion of the Bulk-Power System over which the Applicable Governmental Authority has jurisdiction.\u201d Likewise, revised section 2.0 will establish reciprocal provisions for the disclosure of such Canadian or Mexican compliance-related information to the Commission and its staff.\n35. We observe that, unlike section 3.4 (which relates to investigations), revised section 2.0 does not require notice to the Commission or Canadian and Mexican authorities of specific CMEP compliance or enforcement activities that could trigger disclosure of non-public compliance information. Rather, revised section 2.0 would allow NERC to make, on an ongoing basis, international transfers of compliance-related information it obtains pursuant to the CMEP, if the conditions set forth in section 2.0 for these transfers are met. Our acceptance of revised section 2.0 does not constitute our prior permission for NERC to transfer non-public compliance information about U.S. entities to foreign reliability authorities, because NERC has not yet explained how it would protect from public disclosure non-public U.S. compliance information subject to section 39.7(b)(4). We require NERC to submit this explanation in its compliance filing. We observe that revised section 2.0 does not prohibit NERC\u2019s cross-border transfer of information that is not directly related to a specific Registered Entity\u2019s compliance with a requirement of a Reliability Standard.\n36. We decline CEA\u2019s suggestion to delete the phrase \u201cincluding FERC\u201d from the third sentence of NERC\u2019s proposed revision to section 2.0. First, deletion of this phrase would not change the meaning of the sentence, which permits NERC, under appropriate conditions, to transfer compliance information relating to non-U.S. entities to the Commission, as the applicable governmental entity for the United States. Moreover, even if deletion of this phrase would preclude the Commission from receiving compliance information relating to non-U.S. entities, the first sentence of NERC\u2019s proposed insert would still enable NERC to provide U.S. compliance information to 18 See March 21 Order, 122 FERC \u00b6 61,245 at P 46. Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -14- Canadian and Mexican authorities. Section 2.0 would thereby lose its reciprocity as between the Commission and Canadian and Mexican entities.\n37. For the reasons discussed above, regarding NERC\u2019s revisions to CMEP section 2.0, we accept NERC\u2019s proposed revisions to CMEP sections 3.1.6, 3.4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.6 and 8.0. These revisions are similar to NERC\u2019s section 2.0 revisions but apply to specific notices and reports that the CMEP requires NERC to provide to the Commission with respect to U.S. compliance matters. We disagree with CEA that NERC\u2019s proposed changes to section 3.4.1, step 12, 5.1, 5.4, 5.6 and 8.0 require NERC automatically to provide the Commission with non-U.S. information about compliance matters that do not fall within the Commission\u2019s jurisdiction. Revised section 5.1, for example, would provide that NERC may provide to the Commission a Notice of Alleged Violation issued to a Canadian entity only if the Applicable Governmental Authority with jurisdiction over the Canadian entity or the portion of the Bulk-Power System to which the notice pertains approved in advance the Commission\u2019s receipt of the notice, subject to any limitations placed on the transfer by the applicable Canadian authority or other law of the Canadian jurisdiction.\n38. The wording changes CEA suggests to section 5.1 and other provisions are not necessary to ensure that the Commission\u2019s receipt of Canadian compliance information is subject to prior approval by the relevant Canadian reliability authority under conditions set by that authority and by applicable Canadian law. In addition, as in revised section 2.0, each international disclosure by NERC of compliance information pursuant to these revised provisions is on the condition that the information pertains to a Registered Entity or a portion of the Bulk-Power System over which the Applicable Governmental Authority that would receive the information has jurisdiction. All non-U.S. compliance information the Commission would receive under these provisions must pertain to a Registered Entity or a portion of the Bulk-Power System over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reject as unnecessary CEA\u2019s proposed amendments to these provisions.", "size": 4, "hash": "4845040fbc030b3bb57e92f7897004dd", "id": 6}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "17TmwOjm74O", "uri": "/contracts/17TmwOjm74O#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 14]}, {"key": "changes-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [50, 64]}, {"key": "delegation-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [70, 90]}, {"key": "subject-to-revision", "type": "clause", "offset": [92, 111]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [113, 128]}, {"key": "committee-review", "type": "definition", "offset": [147, 163]}, {"key": "regional-entity", "type": "clause", "offset": [188, 203]}, {"key": "compliance-staff", "type": "definition", "offset": [206, 222]}, {"key": "exhibit-d", "type": "definition", "offset": [355, 364]}, {"key": "the-process", "type": "clause", "offset": [412, 423]}, {"key": "review-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [446, 455]}, {"key": "requirements-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [475, 494]}, {"key": "reliability-standards", "type": "clause", "offset": [495, 516]}, {"key": "relate-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [550, 559]}, {"key": "development-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [564, 578]}, {"key": "sanction-for-violations", "type": "clause", "offset": [606, 629]}, {"key": "in-addition", "type": "clause", "offset": [687, 698]}, {"key": "the-review-process", "type": "clause", "offset": [743, 761]}, {"key": "docket-no", "type": "clause", "offset": [830, 839]}, {"key": "to-amend", "type": "definition", "offset": [870, 878]}, {"key": "to-determine", "type": "clause", "offset": [1005, 1017]}, {"key": "sanctions-for-violations", "type": "clause", "offset": [1045, 1069]}], "snippet": "The Commission accepts \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2019s and FRCC\u2019s proposed changes to the FRCC Delegation Agreement, subject to revision. With respect to FRCC\u2019s compliance committee review process, we expect each Regional Entity\u2019s compliance staff to be independent and technically competent. Thus, we are not persuaded that the compliance committee review process, as revised in Exhibit D, section 1.2, should be permanent. Further, if the process is to be limited to a review of how to comply with requirements of the Reliability Standards, as proposed, reviews should not relate to the development of proposals for a penalty or sanction for violations, as could be permitted under NERC\u2019s and FRCC\u2019s proposal. In addition, only FRCC compliance staff should initiate the review process, when it believes that a review is appropriate. We require NERC and Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -43- FRCC to amend section 1.2 to state that the review process is to be initiated only by compliance staff and that the process may not be used to determine proposals for penalties or sanctions for violations.", "size": 4, "hash": "da87fc4451a81b3d2cdc1c1f6e1855d6", "id": 7}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "17TmwOjm74O", "uri": "/contracts/17TmwOjm74O#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "we-accept", "type": "definition", "offset": [5, 14]}, {"key": "changes-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [41, 55]}, {"key": "delegation-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [60, 80]}, {"key": "subject-to-revision", "type": "clause", "offset": [82, 101]}, {"key": "the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [226, 240]}, {"key": "bylaw-provision", "type": "definition", "offset": [258, 273]}, {"key": "participate-in", "type": "definition", "offset": [529, 543]}, {"key": "docket-no", "type": "clause", "offset": [564, 573]}, {"key": "development-of-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [599, 615]}, {"key": "regional-reliability-standard", "type": "definition", "offset": [616, 645]}, {"key": "ballot-body", "type": "clause", "offset": [708, 719]}, {"key": "regional-transmission-organization", "type": "definition", "offset": [864, 898]}, {"key": "for-example", "type": "clause", "offset": [905, 916]}, {"key": "operations-committee", "type": "definition", "offset": [942, 962]}, {"key": "work-group", "type": "definition", "offset": [1008, 1018]}, {"key": "to-serve", "type": "definition", "offset": [1019, 1027]}, {"key": "development-team", "type": "clause", "offset": [1057, 1073]}, {"key": "the-team", "type": "definition", "offset": [1257, 1265]}, {"key": "affirmative-vote", "type": "definition", "offset": [1378, 1394]}, {"key": "board-of-directors", "type": "definition", "offset": [1550, 1568]}, {"key": "members-committee", "type": "definition", "offset": [1569, 1586]}, {"key": "advisory-votes", "type": "clause", "offset": [1591, 1605]}, {"key": "independent-trustees", "type": "clause", "offset": [1646, 1666]}, {"key": "and-operation", "type": "clause", "offset": [1731, 1744]}, {"key": "ability-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [1819, 1829]}, {"key": "further-consideration", "type": "definition", "offset": [1932, 1953]}, {"key": "notice-to-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2012, 2025]}, {"key": "regional-entity-trustees", "type": "clause", "offset": [2030, 2054]}, {"key": "the-opportunity", "type": "clause", "offset": [2204, 2219]}, {"key": "the-standard", "type": "clause", "offset": [2369, 2381]}, {"key": "pursuant-to-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [2383, 2398]}, {"key": "the-market", "type": "clause", "offset": [2449, 2459]}, {"key": "members-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2553, 2563]}, {"key": "annual-membership-fee", "type": "definition", "offset": [2628, 2649]}, {"key": "agreement-to-pay", "type": "definition", "offset": [2654, 2670]}, {"key": "exit-fee", "type": "clause", "offset": [2685, 2693]}, {"key": "provision-generally", "type": "clause", "offset": [2775, 2794]}, {"key": "open-to-the-public", "type": "clause", "offset": [2860, 2878]}, {"key": "consistent-with", "type": "definition", "offset": [2926, 2941]}, {"key": "provisions-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2948, 2965]}, {"key": "process-manual", "type": "clause", "offset": [3032, 3046]}, {"key": "to-provide", "type": "clause", "offset": [3252, 3262]}, {"key": "compliance-filing", "type": "clause", "offset": [3270, 3287]}, {"key": "right-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [3342, 3350]}, {"key": "take-further-action", "type": "clause", "offset": [3351, 3370]}, {"key": "section-iv", "type": "definition", "offset": [3519, 3529]}, {"key": "the-context", "type": "clause", "offset": [3566, 3577]}, {"key": "performance-assessment", "type": "definition", "offset": [3594, 3616]}], "snippet": "108. We accept NERC\u2019s and SPP\u2019s proposed changes to the SPP Delegation Agreement, subject to revision. While we accept NERC\u2019s and SPP Regional Entity\u2019s proposed changes to the SPP Regional Entity bylaws, it remains unclear to the Commission whether this new bylaw provision fully resolves the concerns set forth in the March 21 Order. NERC and SPP Regional Entity explain that the SPP Regional Entity allows open participation in its activities and SPP Regional Entity does not have membership. Thus, all interested entities may participate in matters such as the Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -36- development of a regional Reliability Standard, or voting on a regional standard as part of the SPP Regional Ballot Body. However, other SPP Regional Entity functions and activities are conducted through the existing committees and structure of SPP Inc., i.e., the regional transmission organization. 109. For example, the SPP Inc. Market and Operations Committee appoints a standing SPP Inc. subcommittee or work group to serve as the Reliability Standards development team for developing a new or revised regional Reliability Standard. While it appears that other interested entities may join and participate in the Reliability Standards development team, the team is initially selected by a SPP Inc. committee. Likewise, once a draft regional Reliability Standard receives an affirmative vote by the SPP Regional Entity Ballot Body, the draft standard is then submitted to the SPP Inc. Market and Operations Committee and subsequently the SPP Inc. Board of Directors/Members Committee for advisory votes before reaching the SPP Regional Entity independent trustees for a final vote. While these votes are \u201cadvisory,\u201d the Markets and Operation Committee and SPP Inc. Board of Directors/Members Committee also have the ability to \u201cremand\u201d a draft regional Reliability Standard back to the Reliability Standards development team for further consideration or even \u201cterminate\u201d the draft standard, albeit subject to notice to the SPP Regional Entity trustees with an opportunity to override such actions.52 110. Thus, the SPP Markets and Operation Committee and SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee have the opportunity to significantly delay, if not terminate, a draft regional Reliability Standard after the SPP Regional Entity Ballot Body has affirmatively voted on the standard. Pursuant to the SPP Inc. bylaws, it appears that participation in the Market and Operations Committee and the SPP Inc. Board of Directors/Members Committee is limited to members of SPP Inc. Further, membership in SPP Inc. is subject to a $6,000 annual membership fee and agreement to pay a significant exit fee. In these circumstances, it is not clear to the Commission whether the new bylaw provision generally assuring that participation in SPP Regional Entity activities is open to the public and does not require membership in SPP Inc. is consistent with other provisions of the SPP Inc. bylaws and the SPP Regional Entity Standards Development Process Manual that identify particular SPP Regional Entity functions and activities, some of which are discussed above, that are conducted by SPP Inc. membership-based committees. We direct NERC and SPP Regional Entity to provide in its compliance filing a further explanation on this matter. We preserve the right to take further action on this issue either in response to the compliance filing or, if appropriate, in 52 See SPP Regional Entity Standards Development Process Manual at section IV. Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -37- the context of \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2019s first performance assessment that is due at the three-year anniversary of its certification as the ERO.", "size": 4, "hash": "0cf9c871bb88cbc60df0138a24ebd19f", "id": 8}, {"samples": [{"hash": "17TmwOjm74O", "uri": "/contracts/17TmwOjm74O#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-commission", "type": "clause", "offset": [4, 18]}, {"key": "section-65", "type": "clause", "offset": [56, 67]}, {"key": "subject-to-the-following-conditions", "type": "clause", "offset": [69, 104]}, {"key": "first-paragraph", "type": "definition", "offset": [130, 145]}, {"key": "registered-entity", "type": "clause", "offset": [181, 198]}, {"key": "regional-entity", "type": "clause", "offset": [250, 265]}, {"key": "compliance-enforcement-authority", "type": "definition", "offset": [349, 381]}, {"key": "mitigation-plans", "type": "clause", "offset": [440, 456]}, {"key": "docket-no", "type": "clause", "offset": [521, 530]}, {"key": "for-example", "type": "clause", "offset": [626, 637]}, {"key": "compliance-violation", "type": "definition", "offset": [738, 758]}, {"key": "the-registered", "type": "clause", "offset": [776, 790]}, {"key": "reliability-standard", "type": "definition", "offset": [883, 903]}, {"key": "applicable-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [904, 917]}, {"key": "to-apply", "type": "clause", "offset": [1001, 1009]}, {"key": "review-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1025, 1034]}, {"key": "provide-for-a", "type": "definition", "offset": [1170, 1183]}, {"key": "de-facto", "type": "definition", "offset": [1191, 1199]}, {"key": "second-paragraph", "type": "definition", "offset": [1287, 1303]}, {"key": "receipt-of-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [1376, 1388]}, {"key": "the-plan", "type": "clause", "offset": [1468, 1476]}, {"key": "approval-period", "type": "definition", "offset": [1498, 1513]}, {"key": "we-agree", "type": "clause", "offset": [1674, 1682]}, {"key": "the-term", "type": "clause", "offset": [1688, 1696]}, {"key": "interpretation-of-this", "type": "clause", "offset": [1801, 1823]}, {"key": "to-amend", "type": "definition", "offset": [1870, 1878]}, {"key": "the-relevant", "type": "clause", "offset": [1944, 1956]}, {"key": "to-extend", "type": "clause", "offset": [2215, 2224]}, {"key": "period-for-review", "type": "clause", "offset": [2229, 2246]}, {"key": "days-after", "type": "definition", "offset": [2278, 2288]}, {"key": "time-period", "type": "definition", "offset": [2430, 2441]}, {"key": "initial-consideration", "type": "definition", "offset": [2457, 2478]}, {"key": "the-date-of-receipt", "type": "clause", "offset": [2693, 2712]}, {"key": "notify-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2741, 2751]}, {"key": "nerc-rules-of-procedure", "type": "definition", "offset": [2845, 2868]}], "snippet": "48. The Commission accepts \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2019s proposed revisions to section 6.5, subject to the following conditions. First, we note that the first paragraph of section 6.5 contemplates that a Registered Entity may submit a mitigation plan initially either to a Regional Entity or to NERC. This is so because, by definition, a Regional Entity or NERC may be a \u201ccompliance enforcement authority.\u201d We understand that Registered Entities generally submit mitigation plans initially to Regional Entities. However, there are instances in Docket No. RR06-1-016, et al. -18- which it is appropriate that NERC initially review a mitigation plan. For example, NERC may initially receive a mitigation plan from a Registered Entity because NERC is conducting a compliance violation investigation of the Registered Entity. NERC may also receive a mitigation plan from a Regional Entity for a violation of a Reliability Standard applicable to the Regional Entity.24 Accordingly, we construe the first paragraph of section 6.5 to apply to the initial review of a mitigation plan, either by a Regional Entity or by NERC. 25\n49. The Commission rejects TANC\u2019s request that section 6.5 be revised to provide for a 30-day de facto approval when a compliance enforcement authority refers a mitigation plan to NERC. The second paragraph of section 6.5 would state, as proposed by \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, that within 30 days of receipt of a mitigation plan from a Regional Entity, NERC will either approve or disapprove the plan. The 65-day de facto approval period that TANC seeks for NERC\u2019s referral of a mitigation plan to a Regional Entity is not necessary because section 6.5 does not contemplate such a referral. Nor do we agree that the term \u201ccompliance enforcement authority\u201d should be deleted from the first paragraph of section 6.5, given our interpretation of this provision. Finally, we reject TANC\u2019s proposal to amend that paragraph to require that a Regional Entity notify NERC and the relevant Registered Entity within 30 days of receipt of a mitigation plan that the Regional Entity either accepts or rejects the plan. This proposal would remove the Regional Entity\u2019s appropriate discretion, already established in the first paragraph of section 6.5, to extend the period for review of a mitigation plan beyond 30 days after its receipt.\n50. However, we agree with TANC that a Registered Entity that submits a mitigation plan should receive some certainty about the time period for the plan\u2019s initial consideration. Accordingly, we direct NERC to amend the first paragraph of section 6.5 to provide that if a compliance enforcement authority extends the period for initial review of a mitigation plan, it must, within 30 days of the date of receipt of the mitigation plan:\n(i) notify the Registered Entity (and NERC, if NERC is not itself acting as the 24 See section 404.2 of the NERC Rules of Procedure.", "size": 4, "hash": "3687e50bea257a9350e99fb66d91ba49", "id": 9}, {"samples": [{"hash": "kHr3NUrK5eI", "uri": "/contracts/kHr3NUrK5eI#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "9qN1jQHh6tw", "uri": "/contracts/9qN1jQHh6tw#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "17TmwOjm74O", "uri": "/contracts/17TmwOjm74O#commission-determination", "label": "Delegation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet_links": [{"key": "we-accept", "type": "definition", "offset": [0, 9]}, {"key": "paragraph-1", "type": "clause", "offset": [38, 49]}], "snippet": "We accept \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2019s proposed revision to paragraph 1.", "size": 3, "hash": "d029c7b5e5806a2b40bc80a8e908e4e8", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "CmESW2oVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3Rzcj0LEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IiFjb21taXNzaW9uLWRldGVybWluYXRpb24jMDAwMDAwMGEMogECZW4YACAA", "clause": {"parents": [["commission-determination", "Commission Determination"], ["mro-delegation-agreement", "Mro Delegation Agreement"], ["npcc-delegation-agreement", "NPCC Delegation Agreement"], ["serc-delegation-agreement", "Serc Delegation Agreement"], ["spp-delegation-agreement", "SPP Delegation Agreement"]], "children": [["commission-determination", "Commission Determination"], ["tre-delegation-agreement", "TRE Delegation Agreement"], ["nercs-and-spps-response", "NERC\u2019s and SPP\u2019s Response"], ["nercs-and-sercs-response", "NERC\u2019s and SERC\u2019s Response"], ["march-21-order", "March 21 Order"]], "size": 41, "title": "Commission Determination", "id": "commission-determination", "related": [["company-determination-final", "Company Determination Final", "Company Determination Final"], ["expert-determination", "Expert Determination", "Expert Determination"], ["board-determination", "Board Determination", "Board Determination"], ["eligibility-determination", "Eligibility Determination", "Eligibility Determination"], ["certain-determinations", "Certain Determinations", "Certain Determinations"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2025-07-23T06:00:56+00:00", "also_ask": [], "drafting_tip": null, "explanation": "The Commission Determination clause defines the process by which a commission or regulatory body makes binding decisions or rulings on matters within its jurisdiction. Typically, this clause outlines the procedures for submitting issues to the commission, the standards or criteria the commission will use to evaluate the matter, and the effect of the commission's decision on the parties involved. For example, it may specify timelines for decisions or clarify whether the commission's determination is final and subject to appeal. The core function of this clause is to provide a clear and authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes or ambiguities, ensuring that decisions are made by a designated expert body and reducing uncertainty for all parties."}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}