Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Comprehensive Licenses,’’ wherever it
is found.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–23078 Filed 9–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM14–13–000]

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

The Commission proposes to
approve Communications Reliability
Standard COM–001–2 and Operating
Personnel Communications Protocols
Reliability Standard COM–002–4,
developed by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
which the Commission has certified as
the Electric Reliability Organization
responsible for developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability
Standards. The Commission believes
that the proposed Reliability Standards
will enhance reliability over the
currently-effective COM standards in
several respects by, among other things,
requiring adoption of predefined
communication protocols, annual
assessment of those protocols and
operating personnel’s adherence thereto,
training on the protocols, and use of
three-part communications. However,
the Commission proposes to direct
NERC to modify proposed Reliability
Standard COM–001–2 to include
internal communications capabilities.
DATES: Comments are due December 1,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by
docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
• Electronic Filing through http://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and
not in a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable
to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

information on the rulemaking process,
see the Comment Procedures Section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent Le (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–6204, Vincent.le@
ferc.gov.
Michael Gandolfo (Technical
Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6817, Michael.gandolfo@ferc.gov.
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–6362,
julie.greenisen@ferc.gov.
Robert T. Stroh (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8473,
Robert.Stroh@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the
Commission proposes to approve two
Reliability Standards, COM–001–2
(Communications) and COM–002–4
(Operating Personnel Communications
Protocols), developed by the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), which the
Commission has certified as the Electric
Reliability Organization responsible for
developing and enforcing mandatory
Reliability Standards. In addition, the
Commission proposes to approve three
new terms to be added to the NERC
Glossary of Terms, and the violation risk
factors, violation severity levels, and
proposed implementation plan for both
revised standards.
2. Proposed Reliability Standard
COM–001–2 is intended to establish a
clear set of requirements for the
communications capabilities that
applicable functional entities must have
in place and maintain. Proposed
Reliability Standard COM–002–4
requires applicable entities to develop
communication protocols with certain
minimum requirements, including use
of three-part communication when
issuing Operating Instructions.2
1 16

U.S.C. 824o (2012).
proposes to define Operating Instruction
as ‘‘[a] command by operating personnel
responsible for the Real-time operation of the
interconnected Bulk Electric System to change or
preserve the state, status, output, or input of an
Element of the Bulk Electric System or Facility of
the Bulk Electric System. (A discussion of general
2 NERC

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

58709

Proposed Reliability Standard COM–
002–4 also sets out certain
communications training requirements
for all issuers and recipients of
Operating Instructions, and establishes a
flexible enforcement approach for
failure to use three-part communication
during non-emergencies and a ‘‘zerotolerance’’ enforcement approach for
failure to use three-part
communications during an emergency.
3. The Commission believes that the
proposed Reliability Standards will
enhance reliability over the currentlyeffective COM standards in several
respects. For example, the proposed
Reliability Standards expand
applicability to include generator
operators and distribution providers and
eliminate certain ambiguities in the
currently-effective standard. Thus, the
Commission proposes to approve the
modified COM standards. However, the
Commission seeks additional
information and explanation on
responsibility for use of three-part
communication by transmission owners
and generation owners that receive
Operating Instructions. In addition, the
Commission proposes to direct NERC to
modify proposed Reliability Standard
COM–001–2 to include internal
communication capabilities, and seeks
additional information on the lack of a
testing requirement for distribution
providers and generator operators in
COM–001–2 and on the intended
meaning and use of the proposed terms
Interpersonal Communication and
Alternative Interpersonal
Communication.
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background
4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to
develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval.3
Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO
subject to Commission oversight, or by
the Commission independently.4 In
2006, the Commission certified NERC as
the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.5
5. The Commission approved
Reliability Standard COM–001–1 in
information and of potential options or alternatives
. . . is not considered an Operating Instruction.)’’
3 16 U.S.C. 824o(c) and (d).
4 See id. 824o(e).
5 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc.
v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

30SEP1

58710

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Order No. 693.6 In addition, the
Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to (1) expand the
applicability of the standard to include
generator operators and distribution
providers, (2) identify specific
requirements for telecommunications
facilities for use in normal and
emergency conditions that reflect the
roles of the applicable entities, and (3)
include adequate flexibility for
compliance to allow for the adoption of
new technologies and cost-effective
solutions.7
6. In Order No. 693, the Commission
also approved Reliability Standard
COM–002–2. In addition, the
Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to (1) include distribution
providers as applicable entities and (2)
establish tightened communications
protocols, especially for
communications during alerts and
emergencies.8
7. NERC initiated Project 2006–06 to
address the Order No. 693 directives
related to Reliability Standards COM–
001 and COM–002, resulting in two
proposed Reliability Standards, COM–
001–2 and COM–002–3. NERC also
initiated Project 2007–02 to develop a
new Reliability Standard (COM–003)
that would require real-time system
operators to use standardized
communication protocols during normal
and emergency operations, in order to
improve situational awareness and
shorten response time. The two projects
ultimately merged when drafts of
Reliability Standard COM–002–3 and
COM–003–1 were combined into a
single proposed Reliability Standard,
COM–002–4.
B. NERC Petition
8. On May 14, 2014, NERC filed a
petition seeking approval of two revised
communication standards, COM–001–2
(Communications) and COM–002–4
(Operating Personnel Communications
Protocols).9 Proposed Reliability
Standard COM–001–2 establishes a set
of requirements for the communications
capabilities various functional entities
must maintain to enable

communications with identified
functional entities. Proposed Reliability
Standard COM–002–4 requires
applicable entities to develop
documented communications protocols.
NERC states that the proposed standards
are intended to address all relevant
Commission directives from Order No.
693.10 In addition, NERC states that the
revisions reflected in proposed COM–
002–4 are intended to address
Recommendation No. 26 from the final
report on the August 2003 blackout
issued by the U.S.-Canada Power
System Outage Task Force (Blackout
Report) concerning the need to
‘‘[t]ighten communications protocols,
especially for communications during
alerts and emergencies.’’ 11
Proposed Reliability Standard COM–
001–2
9. NERC states in its petition that
proposed Reliability Standard COM–
001–2 is intended to establish
requirements for Interpersonal
Communication capabilities necessary
to maintain reliability.12 NERC explains
that proposed Reliability Standard
COM–001–2 applies to reliability
coordinators, balancing authorities,
transmission operators, generator
operators, and distribution providers.
The proposed Reliability Standard
includes eleven requirements and two
new defined terms, ‘‘Interpersonal
Communication’’ and ‘‘Alternative
Interpersonal Communication,’’ that,
according to NERC, collectively provide
a comprehensive approach to
establishing communications
capabilities necessary to maintain
reliability.13 NERC states that the
definitions provide clarity that an
entity’s communication capability must
be redundant and that each of the
capabilities must not utilize the same
medium.14 According to NERC, the
definitions improve the language used
in the current Reliability Standard by
eliminating the use of the more
ambiguous phrases ‘‘adequate and
reliable’’ and ‘‘redundant and diversely
10 NERC

Petition at 3.
(quoting U.S.-Canada Power System Outage
Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003
Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes
and Recommendations at 3 (April 2004), available
at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/
DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf).
12 Id. at 15.
13 Id. NERC defines Interpersonal Communication
as ‘‘[a]ny medium that allows two or more
individuals to interact, consult, or exchange
information’’ and Alternative Interpersonal
Communication as ‘‘[a]ny Interpersonal
Communication that is able to serve as a substitute
for, and does not utilize the same infrastructure
(medium) as, Interpersonal Communication used
for day-to-day operation.’’ Id.
14 Id.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11 Id.

6 See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,242, at P 508, order on reh’g, Order No.
693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007); see also North
American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No.
RD09–2–000 (2009) (delegated letter order
accepting Reliability Standard COM–001–1.1).
7 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 508.
8 Id. PP 531–535, 540.
9 The proposed COM Reliability Standards are not
attached to the NOPR. The complete text of the
proposed Reliability Standards is available on the
Commission’s eLibrary document retrieval system
in Docket No. RM14–13 and is posted on the ERO’s
Web site, available at http://www.nerc.com.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

routed’’ that relate to
‘‘telecommunications facilities for the
exchange of Interconnection and
operating information.’’ 15
10. The first six requirements address
the Interpersonal Communication
capability and Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability of the
reliability coordinator, transmission
operator, and balancing authority.
Requirement R1 requires each reliability
coordinator to have Interpersonal
Communication capability with all
transmission operators and balancing
authorities within its reliability
coordinator area, and with each adjacent
reliability coordinator within the same
interconnection. Requirement R2
requires each reliability coordinator to
designate Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability with those
same identified entities. Requirements
R3 and R4 set out the communications
capability requirements for a
transmission operator. Under
Requirement R3, Interpersonal
Communication capability is required
between the transmission operator’s
reliability coordinator, each balancing
authority within its transmission
operator area, each distribution provider
and generator operator within its
transmission operator area, and each
adjacent transmission operator whether
synchronously or asynchronously
connected. Under Requirement R4,
Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability must be
designated between the transmission
operator’s reliability coordinator, each
balancing authority within its
transmission operator area, and each
adjacent transmission operator.
Requirements R5 and R6 set out similar
requirements for each balancing
authority, again identifying the specific
functional entities for which the
balancing authority must maintain
Interpersonal Communication capability
and for which it must designate
Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability.
11. Requirements R7 and R8 address
the communications capability that
distribution providers and generator
operators must maintain, with each
required to have Interpersonal
Communications capability with its
balancing authority and its transmission
operator.
12. Requirement R9 requires each
reliability coordinator, transmission
operator, and balancing authority to test
its Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability at least once
each calendar month, and to initiate
action to repair or designate a
15 Id.

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

at 15–16.

30SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
replacement if the test is unsuccessful.
Requirement R10 requires the same
entities to notify applicable entities (as
identified in R1, R3 and R5) of the
detection of an Interpersonal
Communication capability failure that
lasts 30 minutes or longer. Finally,
Requirement R11 requires distribution
providers and generator operators to
consult with affected balancing
authorities and transmission operators
when a failure is detected in their
Interpersonal Communication
capability, and to determine a mutually
agreeable action for the restoration of
that capability.
13. NERC states in its petition that
proposed Reliability Standard COM–
001–2 improves the currently-effective
Reliability Standard by: (1) Eliminating
terms that do not adequately specify the
desired actions that applicable entities
are expected to take in relation to their
telecommunication facilities; (2) clearly
identifying the need for applicable
entities to be capable of Interpersonal
Communication and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication; (3) not
requiring specific technology or systems
to be utilized; and (4) including the
distribution provider and generator
operator as applicable entities.16 NERC
adds that the proposed Reliability
Standard also addresses the
Commission’s directives from Order No.
693 related to COM–001 by (1) adding
generator operators and distribution
providers as applicable entities; (2)
identifying specific requirements for
telecommunications capabilities for use
in all operating conditions that reflect
the roles of the applicable entities and
their impact on reliability; and (3)
including adequate flexibility to permit
the adoption of new technologies.17
14. NERC proposes to retire the
currently effective COM–001 Reliability
Standard when proposed Reliability
Standard COM–001–2 becomes
effective, with the exception of
Requirement R4, which addresses
communications protocols. NERC
requests that Requirement R4 be retired
when proposed Reliability Standard
COM–002–4 becomes effective.18
16 NERC

Petition at 18.
Petition at 4; see also supra n.6 and
accompanying text.
18 Id. at 22. NERC notes that the substance of
Requirement R5 in the currently effective standard,
COM–001–1.1, is addressed by Requirement R1 of
EOP–008–1. Accordingly, NERC explains that the
requirement has not been carried forward in
proposed COM–001–2. In addition, NERC notes that
Requirement R6 in the currently effective standard,
which requires adherence to certain policies when
using NERCnet, is not being carried forward, as
NERC is in the process of transitioning NERCnet to
industry, and in order to preserve NERC’s ability to
respond to new technologies without requiring
modification of a Reliability Standard. Id. at 22–23.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

17 NERC

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

Proposed Reliability Standard COM–
002–4
15. NERC states that proposed
Reliability Standard COM–002–4
improves communications surrounding
the issuance of Operating Instructions
by requiring use of predefined
communications protocols to reduce the
possibility of miscommunication that
could lead to action or inaction harmful
to reliability.19 NERC notes that the
proposed standard requires use of the
same protocols regardless of operating
condition (i.e., Emergency or nonemergency), but requires operating
personnel to use the documented
communication protocols for three-part
communications ‘‘without exception’’
during an Emergency.20 As NERC
explains:
[T]he proposed Reliability Standard
employs the phrase ‘‘Operating Instruction
during an Emergency’’ in certain
requirements (R5, R6, R7) to provide a
demarcation for what is subject to a zerotolerance compliance approach and what is
not.21

NERC explains that, for Operating
Instructions issued during nonemergency operations, ‘‘an entity will be
assessed under a compliance approach
that focuses on whether an entity meets
the initial training Requirement (either
R2 or R3) and whether an entity
performed the assessment and took
corrective actions according to
Requirement R4.’’ 22
16. Finally, NERC states that the
proposed Reliability Standard includes
distribution providers and generator
operators as applicable entities, in
accordance with the Commission’s
directive in Order No. 693, and in
recognition of the fact that these types
of entities can be recipients of Operating
Instructions.23
17. Proposed Reliability Standard
COM–002–4 includes seven
requirements. Requirement R1 requires
entities that can both issue and receive
19 Id. at 23. NERC states that COM–002–3 (which
was adopted by the NERC Board but not submitted
to the Commission for approval) is proposed for
retirement in the Implementation Plan because the
proposed Reliability Standard has been combined
with proposed COM–003–1 to create proposed
Reliability Standard COM–002–4. NERC states that
Reliability Standard COM–002–3 has not been
submitted to the Commission for approval,
therefore, the currently effective version of COM–
002 is COM–002–2. Id. at 23 n.43. The proposed
Reliability Standard combines proposed Reliability
Standard COM–002–3 and the former draft COM–
003–1 into a single standard that addresses
communications protocols for operating personnel
in Emergency and non-emergency conditions. Id. at
23–24.
20 Id. at 3.
21 Id. at 25.
22 Id. at 26.
23 Id. at 27–28.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

58711

Operating Instructions (balancing
authorities, reliability coordinators and
transmission operators) to have
documented communications protocols
that include a minimum set of elements,
including use of the English language
unless otherwise specified, and required
use of three-part communications for
issuance and receipt of Operating
Instructions.24 Requirement R2 requires
these same entities to conduct initial
training on the communications
protocols for each of their operating
personnel responsible for the real-time
operation of the bulk electric system.
Requirement R3 requires distribution
providers and generator operators (who
generally only receive but do not issue
Operating Instructions) to conduct
initial training on three-part
communication for each of their
operating personnel who can receive an
oral two-party, person-to-person
Operating Instruction, prior to that
individual operator receiving an oral
two-party, person-to-person Operating
Instruction.
18. Requirement R4 requires each
balancing authority, reliability
coordinator and transmission operator
to assess, at least once every twelve
months, its operating personnel’s
adherence to the documented
communication protocols required in
Requirement R1, and to provide
feedback to its operating personnel on
their performance.
19. Requirement R5 requires
balancing authorities, reliability
coordinators and transmission operators
that issue an oral two-party, person-toperson ‘‘Operating Instruction during an
Emergency’’ to use three-part
communication, and to take an
alternative action if a confirmation is
not received. Requirement R6 requires
all applicable entities (balancing
authorities, distribution providers,
generator operators, and transmission
operators) that receive an oral two-party,
person-to-person ‘‘Operating Instruction
during an Emergency’’ to use three-part
communication, i.e., to repeat the
Operating Instruction and receive
confirmation from the issuer that the
response was correct, or request that the
issuer reissue the Operating Instruction.
Both Requirement R5 and R6 include
the clarification that the requirement
does not apply to single-party to
multiple-party ‘‘burst’’ Operating
Instructions. As noted above, NERC
explains that Requirements R5 and R6
require use of three-part communication
during an Emergency without
exception, because ‘‘use of three-part
communication is critically important if
24 See

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

id. at 29.

30SEP1

58712

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

an Emergency condition already exists,
as further action or inaction could
increase the harmful effects to the Bulk
Electric System.’’ 25 NERC further
explains, however, that applicable
entities are expected to use three-part
communications at all times when
issuing and receiving Operating
Instructions.26
20. Finally, Requirement R7 requires
that when a balancing authority,
reliability coordinator, or transmission
operator issues a written or oral singleparty to multiple-party ‘‘burst’’
Operating Instruction during an
Emergency, they must confirm or verify
that at least one receiver received the
Operating Instruction.
21. NERC requests that proposed
Reliability Standard COM–002–4
become effective on the first day of the
first calendar quarter that is twelve
months after the date that the standard
is approved.
II. Discussion
22. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of
the FPA, the Commission proposes to
approve proposed Reliability Standards
COM–001–2 and COM–002–4, the three
new definitions referenced in the
proposed standards (Operating
Instruction, Interpersonal
Communication, and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication), and the
assigned violation risk factors and
violation severity levels and proposed
implementation plan for each standard.
We believe that proposed COM–001–2
will enhance reliability by expanding
the applicability of currently effective
COM–001–1.1 to include generator
operators and distribution providers.
Further, this modification to the
applicability provision satisfies the
Commission’s directive in Order No.
693.
23. Likewise, we believe that
proposed Reliability Standard COM–
002–4 enhances reliability by expanding
the applicability of the standard to
include distribution providers that
receive Operating Instructions, in
accordance with the directive in Order
No. 693. Moreover, proposed COM–
002–4 requires the development of
communication protocols for operating
personnel that issue or receive
Operating Instructions that require the
use of three-part communication, and
adopts a zero-tolerance approach in
enforcing the use of three-part
communications during an Emergency.
While the zero-tolerance approach
applies only during an Emergency,
Requirement R4 imposes an important
25 Id.
26 Id.

at 39.
at 25–26.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

requirement for an entity to assess, at
least once every twelve months, its
operating personnel’s adherence to the
documented communication protocols
required in Requirement R1, and to
provide feedback to its operating
personnel on their performance. This
requirement should help ensure a high
level of compliance with three-part
communication at all times, not just
during an Emergency. Without this
mechanism, poor performance at
routine times could eventually lead to
poor performance at critical times. The
Commission believes that the
establishment of clear communication
protocols based on three-part
communication provides a fundamental
element of maintaining Bulk-Power
System reliability. Thus, the revisions
reflected in proposed Reliability
Standard COM–002–4 appear to address
Recommendation No. 26 from the final
report on the August 2003 blackout
issued by the U.S.-Canada Power
System Outage Task Force (Blackout
Report) concerning the need to
‘‘[t]ighten communications protocols,
especially for communications during
alerts and emergencies.’’ 27 Finally,
COM–002–4 eliminates the ambiguity
surrounding the meaning of ‘‘directive’’
in the currently-effective version of
COM–002–2.
24. While we propose to approve
COM–001–2 and COM–002–4 for the
reasons stated above, we also have
questions regarding specific provisions
of the proposed Reliability Standards,
and we seek further explanation or
comment from NERC and others.
Accordingly, we discuss below the
following issues: (1) Responsibility for
use of three-part communication by
transmission owners and generation
owners that receive Operating
Instructions; (2) whether proposed
COM–001–2 should be modified to
address internal communication
capability requirements, or to address
testing requirements for distribution
providers and generator operators; and
(3) clarifications regarding the proposed
terms Interpersonal Communication and
Alternative Interpersonal
Communication.
A. Applicability of Communications
Standard Requirements to Transmission
Owners and Generator Owners
25. Consistent with the Commission
directives in Order No. 693, proposed
Reliability Standard COM–001–2 will
27 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force,
Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the
United States and Canada: Causes and
Recommendations at 3 (April 2004) (Blackout
Report), available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/
electric/indus-act/blackout.asp.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

apply to generator operators and
distribution providers (in addition to
transmission operators, balancing
authorities, and reliability coordinators).
Likewise, proposed Reliability Standard
COM–002–4 will apply to distribution
providers (in addition to balancing
authorities, reliability coordinators,
transmission operators, and generator
operators).
26. Proposed Reliability Standards
COM–001–2 and COM–002–4 do not
identify transmission owners or
generator owners as applicable entities.
Are there instances, however, in which
transmission owners or generation
owners may receive and act on
‘‘Operating Instructions,’’ such as in
areas operated by Regional
Transmission Organizations or
Independent System Operators?
27. We seek an explanation from
NERC and other commenters regarding
the obligations of an applicable entity
identified in COM–001–2 and COM–
002–4 when communicating with a
transmission owner or generator owner.
For example, if a transmission operator,
presumably required to use three-part
communication under the proposed
standards, communicates an Operating
Instruction to a transmission owner or
generation owner, which entity (if any)
is responsible if the transmission owner
or generation owner fails to perform
three-part communication properly? 28
Among other things, NERC should
explain its auditing practices in
reviewing operating agreements
between transmission operators and
transmission owners and generation
owners (or other agreements for
assigning operational and compliance
responsibility), and its approach in
reviewing the protocols of any
transmission owner or generator owner
that acts on Operating Instructions to
ascertain that they use three-part
communication when and as required
under proposed COM–002–4.
B. Scope of COM–001–2—Internal
Communications Capability and Testing
Requirements for Distribution Providers
and Generator Operators
28. Requirement R1.1 of currentlyeffective Reliability Standard COM–
001–1.1 states that each reliability
coordinator, transmission operator, and
balancing authority ‘‘shall provide
28 We understand that NERC has issued a
Compliance Bulletin that discusses, in a general
manner, the compliance obligations of registered
entities and various contractual mechanisms for
sharing or assigning compliance responsibility. See
NERC Compliance Bulletin #2010–004 (Guidance
for Entities that Delegate Reliability Tasks to a
Third Party Entity). Here, however, we seek a better
understanding of such obligations in the specific
context of the proposed COM standards.

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

30SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
adequate and reliable
telecommunication facilities for the
exchange of Interconnection and
operating information . . . internally.’’
Thus, COM–001–1.1 explicitly requires
applicable entities to have adequate
infrastructure for internal
communications. We believe such a
requirement is appropriate, since
internal communications can have an
impact on reliability, including certain
communications between a control
center and a generating unit operator
and other field personnel or between
two control centers (where operated by
a single entity).
29. Proposed Reliability Standard
COM–001–2 does not carry forward the
explicit requirement with respect to
internal communications. Instead, it
requires applicable entities to have
‘‘Interpersonal Communication’’ 29
capability with other identified
functional entities, as specified in the
individual requirements. For example,
Requirement R1 provides:
Each Reliability Coordinator shall have
Interpersonal Communication capability with
the following entities * * *.
1.1. All Transmission Operators and
Balancing Authorities within its Reliability
Coordinator Area.
1.2. Each adjacent Reliability Coordinator
within the same Interconnection.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

NERC’s petition does not address the
elimination of the explicit requirement
related to internal communications
capability.
30. The Commission believes that
maintaining adequate internal
communications capability can be
critical to reliability. For example, the
2003 Blackout Report recommended
improvements in internal
communication effectiveness along with
improvements to external
communications.30 Moreover, the
Blackout Report listed as one of the
causes of the blackout that First
Energy’s ‘‘control center computer
support staff and operations staff did
not have effective internal
communications procedures’’ and
‘‘lacked procedures to ensure that its
operators were continually aware of the
functional state of their critical
monitoring tools.’’ 31 The Blackout
Report found that these factors
contributed to First Energy’s
29 As

noted above, NERC proposes to define
Interpersonal Communication as ‘‘[a]ny medium
that allows two or more individuals to interact,
consult, or exchange information.’’ NERC Petition at
15.
30 Blackout Report at 161 (‘‘NERC should work
with reliability coordinators and [balancing
authorities] to improve the effectiveness of internal
and external communications . . . .’’).
31 Id. at 18.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

‘‘inadequate situational awareness’’ and
its failure ‘‘to recognize or understand
the deteriorating condition of its
system’’ during that event.32 However,
the proposed Reliability Standard does
not retain an explicit requirement with
respect to internal communications
capability. We accordingly propose to
direct NERC to develop modifications to
COM–001 (or to develop a separate
standard) that ensures that entities
maintain adequate internal
communications capability, at least to
the extent that such communications
could involve the issuance or receipt of
Operating Instructions or other
communications that could have an
impact on reliability. Alternatively, a
requirement for internal
communications capability may be
implicit in the proposed requirements
for communications capability between
functional entities such as Reliability
Coordinators and Transmission
Operators, since the proposed
requirements are not explicitly limited
to functional entities that are different
utilities and could be understood as
including communications capability
within a utility performing and
registered for multiple functions. We
seek comment on whether the proposed
requirements can and should be
understood this way.
31. In addition, the Requirement 9
monthly testing requirement in COM–
001–2 applies to reliability coordinators,
balancing authorities, and transmission
operators, but not generator operators
and distribution providers. We seek
comment on why generator operators
and distribution providers should not
have some form of requirement to test
or actively monitor vital primary and
emergency telecommunication facilities,
particularly given the assumptions the
Commission made in Order No. 749
when approving Reliability Standard
EOP–005–2 (System Restoration from
Blackstart Resources).33 In that order,
the Commission relied on NERC’s
assurances not only that COM–001–2
would be revised to include distribution
providers and generator operators, but
that such revisions would address the
Commission’s concerns about the lack
of certain testing requirements in EOP–
005–2:
The Commission believes the objectives of
[the project to revise COM–001–1.1] in
managing, alarming, testing and/or actively
monitoring vital primary and emergency
telecommunication facilities will close this
32 Id.

at 18; see also id. at 51–53, 56 and 65–67.
System Restoration Reliability Standards,
Order No. 749, 134 FERC ¶ 61,215 at PP 26–28
(2011).

gap in the Reliability Standard after it is
completed and approved.34

Is the same objective intended to be
addressed by Requirement 11? (‘‘Each
Distribution Provider and Generator
Operator that detects a failure of its
Interpersonal Communication capability
shall consult each entity affected by the
failure, as identified in Requirement R7
for a Distribution Provider or
Requirement R8 for a Generator
Operator, to determine a mutually
agreeable action for the restoration of its
Interpersonal Communication
capability.’’) If so, we ask NERC to
provide support for this approach.
C. Reliability Standard COM–001–2—
Definition of Interpersonal
Communications and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication
32. Finally, we seek clarification
regarding the scope and meaning of the
proposed definitions of Interpersonal
Communication and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication. As noted
above, NERC proposes to define those
terms, respectively, as follows:
Interpersonal Communication—Any
medium that allows two or more individuals
to interact, consult, or exchange information.
Alternative Interpersonal
Communication—Any Interpersonal
Communication that is able to serve as a
substitute for, and does not utilize the same
infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal
Communication used for day-to-day
operation.

NERC indicates that it developed
these definitions to eliminate the
ambiguity of the terms ‘‘adequate and
reliable’’ in requirement R1 of COM–
001–1.1, and the terms ‘‘redundant and
diversely routed’’ in Requirement
R1.4.35
33. While the Commission
understands the need to allow flexibility
as to the type of communication
medium or infrastructure to be used, the
definitions do not state explicitly a
minimum expectation of
communication performance such as
speed and quality to ensure that the
communication is sufficient to maintain
the reliable operation of the bulk power
system. Further, while currentlyeffective Reliability Standard COM–
001–1.1, Requirement R1, addresses
‘‘telecommunications facilities for the
exchange of Interconnection and
operating information,’’ a term that
appears to include facilities that directly
exchange or transfer data, the proposed
definition of Interpersonal
Communication refers to exchanges
between individual persons. It is

33 See

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

58713

34 Id.

P 28.
Petition at 15–16.

35 NERC

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

30SEP1

58714

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules

unclear whether the definition of
Interpersonal Communications includes
mediums used directly to exchange or
transfer data. Thus, we seek further
explanation from NERC and other
interested commenters regarding
acceptable (and unacceptable)
performance of communication for both
Interpersonal and Alternative
Interpersonal Communications.
III. Information Collection Statement
34. The collection of information
contained in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.36
OMB’s regulations require approval of
certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency
rules.37 Upon approval of a collection(s)
of information, OMB will assign an
OMB control number and an expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of a rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these
collections of information unless the
collections of information display a
valid OMB control number.
35. We solicit comments on the need
for this information, whether the
information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of the burden estimates,
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected
or retained, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondents’ burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques. Specifically,
the Commission asks that any revised
burden or cost estimates submitted by
commenters be supported by sufficient
detail to understand how the estimates
are generated.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Information collection requirement

(One-time) Development of Communication Protocols [COM–002–4
R1].
(On-going) Maintain evidence of
Interpersonal Communication capability [COM–001–2 R7 and
R8] 39.
(On-going) Maintain evidence of
training and assessments [COM–
002–4 R2, R4, R5 and R6].
(On-going) Maintain evidence of assessments [COM–002–4 R3, and
R6].

36 44

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

generator operators, and distribution
providers) must be able to provide
evidence of three-part communication
when issuing or receiving an Operating
Instruction during an Emergency.
Many of the record retention or
information collection requirements in
proposed COM–001–2 and COM–002–4
are translated in some form from the
currently-effective Reliability Standards
(COM–001–1 and COM–002–2). For
these requirements, the Commission
estimates a zero net change in burden.
Accordingly, our estimate below shows
the increase in record-retention or
information collection burden, based on
the new requirements to:
(1) Develop communications protocols (a
one-time burden under COM–002–4, R1);
(2) maintain evidence of required training,
assessments, and use of three-part
communications, as applicable (an on-going
burden under COM–002–4 R2, R3, R4, R5
and R6); and
(3) maintain evidence to demonstrate
Interpersonal Communication capability (a
new, on-going burden for distribution
providers and generator operators under
COM–001–2 R7 and R8).

The Commission’s estimate of the
number of respondents is based on the
NERC compliance registry as of August
15, 2014. According to the NERC
compliance registry, NERC has
registered 179 transmission operators,
107 balancing authorities, 15 reliability
coordinators, 475 distribution providers,
and 853 generator operators within the
United States. However, under NERC’s
compliance registration program,
entities may be registered for multiple
functions, so these numbers incorporate
some double counting, which has been
accounted for in the table below. The
Commission estimates the annual
reporting burden and cost as follows:

Number and type of
respondents

Annual
number of
responses per
respondent

Total number
of responses

Average burden &
cost per response 38

Total annual burden
hours & total annual
cost

(1)

(2)

(1)*(2) = (3)

(4)

(3)*(4) = (5)

212 (BA, RC & TOP)

1

212

8 hrs. & $485.60 .......

1,696 hours &
$102,947.20.

1,217 (DP & GOP) ....

1

1,217

4 hrs. & $115.72 .......

4,868 hours &
$140,831.24.

212 (BA, RC & TOP)

1

212

8 hrs. & $231.44 .......

1,696 hours &
$102,947.20.

1,217 (DP & GOP) ....

1

1,217

8 hrs. & $231.44 .......

9,736 hours &
$281,662.48.

U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

36. This notice proposes to approve
Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and
COM–002–4, and to retire Reliability
Standards COM–001–1.1 and COM–
002–2. Proposed Reliability Standard
COM–001–2 will establish Interpersonal
Communication capability necessary to
maintain reliability, while proposed
Reliability Standard COM–002–4 will
improve communications related to
Operating Instructions, requiring issuers
of Operating Instructions to adopt
predefined communications protocols
and requiring both issuers and
recipients of Operating Instructions to
use three-part communications.
Public Reporting Burden: Proposed
Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and
COM–002–4 do not require responsible
entities to file information with the
Commission. However, the proposed
Reliability Standards require applicable
entities to develop and maintain certain
information, subject to audit. In
particular, COM–001–2 requires that
transmission operators, balancing
authorities, reliability coordinators,
distribution providers, and generator
operators must maintain documentation
of Interpersonal Communication
capability and designation of Alternate
Interpersonal Communication, as well
as evidence of testing of the Alternate
Interpersonal Communication facilities.
COM–002–4 requires balancing
authorities, distribution providers,
reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, and generator operators to
develop and maintain documented
communication protocols, and to be
able to provide evidence of training on
the protocols and of their annual
assessment of the protocols.
Additionally, all applicable entities
(balancing authorities, reliability
coordinators, transmission operators,

37 5

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

CFR 1320.11 (2013).

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

30SEP1

58715

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Information collection requirement

Total ..........................................

Number and type of
respondents

Annual
number of
responses per
respondent

Total number
of responses

Average burden &
cost per response 38

Total annual burden
hours & total annual
cost

(1)

(2)

(1)*(2) = (3)

(4)

(3)*(4) = (5)

....................................

........................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System: COM
Reliability Standards.
Action: Proposed FERC–725V.
OMB Control No: To be determined.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions; not-for-profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One-time
and ongoing.
Necessity of the Information:
Reliability Standard COM–001–2 and
COM–002–4, if adopted, would
implement the Congressional mandate
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards to better ensure
the reliability of the nation’s BulkPower System. Specifically, the purpose
of the proposed Reliability Standards is
to establish Interpersonal
Communication capability necessary to
maintain reliability, and to improve
communications for the issuance of
Operating Instructions with predefined
communications protocols. The
proposed Reliability Standards require
entities to maintain records subject to
review by the Commission and NERC to
ensure compliance with the Reliability
Standards.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the requirements pertaining to
the proposed Reliability Standards for
the Bulk-Power System and determined
that the proposed requirements are
necessary to meet the statutory
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. 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
38 The estimated hourly costs (salary plus
benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) information (available at http://bls.gov/oes/
current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000) for an
electrical engineer ($60.70/hour for review and
documentation), and for a file clerk ($28.93/hour for
record retention). The first row of the table (onetime burden) is done by an engineer, and the latter
three rows (ongoing burden) are done by a file clerk.
39 No change is expected in the record-keeping
burden under COM–001–2 for reliability
coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators as compared to the
currently-effective COM–001 standard.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

2,858

the burden estimates associated with the
information requirements.
37. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director,
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone:
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
38. Comments concerning the
information collections proposed in this
NOPR and the associated burden
estimates should be sent to the
Commission in these dockets and may
also be sent to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security
reasons, comments should be sent by
email to OMB at the following email
address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Please reference FERC–725V and the
docket numbers of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No.
RM14–13–000) in your submission.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
39. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 40 generally requires a
description and analysis of proposed
rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Proposed
Reliability Standard COM–001–2 is
expected to impose burdens for the first
time on 1,217 entities (i.e., distribution
providers and generator operators).
Proposed Reliability Standard COM–
002–4 may apply to as many as 1,279
entities.41 Comparison of the applicable
entities with FERC’s small business data
indicates that approximately 934 of the
1,279 entities are small entities.42
40 5

U.S.C. 601–612.
applicable entities are balancing
authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, generator operators, and distribution
providers. After accounting for entities registered
for more than one function, the total count is 1,279
entities.
42 The Small Business Administration sets the
threshold for what constitutes a small business.
Public utilities may fall under one of several
different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company’s number of employees,
including affiliates, the parent company, and
41 The

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

....................................

17,996 hours &
$574,506.20.

40. Proposed Reliability Standard
COM–002–4 will serve to enhance
reliability by, among other things,
requiring adoption of predefined
communication protocols, annual
assessment of those protocols and
operating personnel’s adherence thereto,
training on the protocols, and use of
three-part communications. The
Commission estimates that each small
balancing authority, reliability
coordinator, and transmission operator
subject to proposed Reliability Standard
COM–002–4 will incur one-time
compliance costs of about $486 (i.e.
development of communication
protocols), plus on-going annual costs of
about $717 (i.e. performing training and
maintaining evidence of training and
assessments).43 The Commission
estimates that each of the small
distribution provider and generator
operator entities potentially subject to
proposed Reliability Standards COM–
001–2 and COM–002–4 will incur ongoing annual costs of about $833 (i.e.
performing training and maintaining
evidence of interpersonal
communication capability and of
training).44 The Commission does not
consider the estimated costs per small
entity to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, the Commission
certifies that this NOPR will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
V. Environmental Analysis
41. 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
subsidiaries. The possible categories for the
applicable entities have a size threshold ranging
from 250 employees to 1,000 employees. We are
using the 1000 employee threshold for this analysis.
43 The one-time paperwork-related
implementation cost estimate is based on a burden
of eight hours at $60.70/hour, and the annual
ongoing cost estimate is based on a burden of eight
hours at $28.93/hour for maintaining evidence, and
eight hours at $60.70/hour for performing training.
44 The ongoing cost is based on burden of 12
hours at $28.93/hour for maintaining evidence, and
eight hours at $60.70/hour for performing training.

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

30SEP1

58716

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules

environment.45 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.46 The
actions proposed herein fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
VI. 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 1, 2014.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM14–13–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and
address.
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 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

VII. 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 the
Commission’s Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
45 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).
46 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:11 Sep 29, 2014

Jkt 232001

Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
47. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
48. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s Online Support at 202–
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–23196 Filed 9–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM14–12–000]

Demand and Energy Data Reliability
Standard
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

The Commission proposes to
approve Demand and Energy Data
Reliability Standard MOD–031–1
developed by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation, which
the Commission has certified as the
Electric Reliability Organization
responsible for developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability
Standards.

SUMMARY:

DATES:

Comments are due December 1,

2014.
Comments, identified by
docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
• Electronic Filing through http://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and
not in a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable
to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy

ADDRESSES:

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Comment Procedures Section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Morris (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Division
of Reliability Standards and Security,
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–6803, Susan.Morris@
ferc.gov.
Robert T. Stroh (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8473,
Robert.Stroh@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the
Commission proposes to approve
Reliability Standard MOD–031–1
(Demand and Energy Data) developed
by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), which
the Commission has certified as the
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO)
responsible for developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability
Standards. Reliability Standard MOD–
031–1 provides authority for applicable
entities to collect demand, energy and
related data to support reliability
studies and assessments and to
enumerate the responsibilities and
obligations of requestors and
respondents of that data. In addition,
the Commission proposes to approve
NERC’s proposed definitions for the
terms Demand Side Management and
Total Internal Demand. The
Commission also proposes to approve
the associated implementation plan,
violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, and NERC’s proposed
retirement of the currently-effective
Reliability Standards MOD–016–1.1,
MOD–017–0.1, MOD–018–0, MOD–
019–0.1, and MOD–021–1 (Existing
MOD C Standards).
I. Background
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. Once
approved, the Reliability Standards are
enforced by the ERO, subject to
Commission oversight, or by the
1 16

E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM

U.S.C. 824o(d) (2012).

30SEP1