80 FR 22385 - Communications Reliability Standards
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 77 (April 22, 2015)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 77 (April 22, 2015)
| Page Range | 22385-22395 | |
| FR Document | 2015-09225 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 22385-22395] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-09225] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM14-13-000; Order No. 808] Communications Reliability Standards AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission approves two revised 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. The two revised Reliability Standards will 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. In addition, the Commission directs NERC to develop a modification to Reliability Standard COM-001-2 that addresses internal communications capabilities that could involve the issuance or receipt of Operating Instructions or other communications that could have an impact on reliability. DATES: This rule will become effective June 22, 2015. 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, [email protected]. Michael Gandolfo (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6817, [email protected]. Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6362, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 22386]] Order No. 808 Final Rule 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the Commission approves 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. The Commission also approves three new defined terms for addition to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), violation risk factors, violation severity levels, and NERC's proposed implementation plan for both revised standards. Further, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directs that NERC develop one modification to Reliability Standard COM-001-2 that addresses internal communications capabilities 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 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. 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\ 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 ``zero-tolerance,'' i.e., without exception, enforcement approach for failure to use three-part communication during an emergency.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ NERC 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 information and of potential options or alternatives . . . is not considered an Operating Instruction.).'' \3\ See NERC Petition at 3 (``during Emergencies, operating personnel must use the documented communication protocols for three- part communications without exception.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. We find that Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 will enhance reliability over the currently-effective versions of these Communications (COM) standards in several respects. For example, the Reliability Standards as modified expand applicability to include generator operators and distribution providers, eliminate certain ambiguities in the currently-effective standards, and clarify that the use of three-part communication is required for issuance and receipt of all Operating Instructions, with a zero-tolerance approach to enforcement of that requirement during an emergency. However, we are not persuaded that COM-001-2 adequately covers all situations in which Operating Instructions are issued or received and, therefore, direct NERC to develop a modification to that standard that addresses our concern, as further discussed below. 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.\4\ Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.\5\ In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 16 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d). \5\ See id. at 824o(e). \6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. The Commission approved Reliability Standard COM-001-1 in Order No. 693.\7\ In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to COM-001-1 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.\8\ Similarly, the Commission approved Reliability Standard COM-002-2 in Order No. 693. 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.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 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). \8\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 508. \9\ Id. PP 531-535, 540. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. 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 7. 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).\10\ Proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-2 establishes a set of requirements for the communications capabilities that various functional entities must maintain to enable communications with other identified functional entities. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4 requires applicable entities to develop documented communications protocols. NERC stated in its petition that the proposed standards are intended to address all relevant Commission directives from Order No. 693. In addition, NERC stated 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The COM Reliability Standards are not attached to the Final Rule. The complete text of the two 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. \11\ 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) (Blackout Report), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 22387]] Reliability Standard COM-001-2 8. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM-001-2 establishes requirements for Interpersonal Communication capabilities necessary to maintain reliability. NERC explained 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.\12\ NERC stated 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. 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 routed'' that relate to ``telecommunications facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information.'' \13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Id. at 15. 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. \13\ Id. at 15-16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. The first six requirements of COM-001-2 address the Interpersonal Communication capability and Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability of the reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority functions. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 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. 12. NERC stated 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.\14\ NERC added that COM-001-2 also addresses relevant directives from Order No. 693 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ NERC Petition at 18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. NERC proposed to retire currently-effective COM-001-1.1 when proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-2 becomes effective, with the exception of Requirement R4, which addresses communications protocols. NERC requested that Requirement R4 be retired when proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4 becomes effective.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Id. at 22. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reliability Standard COM-002-4 14. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM-002-4 improves communications surrounding the issuance of Operating Instructions by requiring the use of predefined communications protocols to reduce the possibility of miscommunication that could lead to action or inaction harmful to reliability.\16\ NERC noted that the proposed standard requires use of the same protocols regardless of operating condition (i.e., Emergency or non-emergency), but requires operating personnel to use the documented communication protocols for three-part communications ``without exception'' during an Emergency.\17\ As NERC explained: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Id. at 23. NERC stated 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 stated 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. Reliability Standard COM- 002-4 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. \17\ Id. at 3. [T]he proposed Reliability Standard employs the phrase ``Operating Instruction during an Emergency'' in certain [[Page 22388]] requirements (R5, R6, R7) to provide a demarcation for what is --------------------------------------------------------------------------- subject to a zero-tolerance compliance approach and what is not.\18\ \18\ Id. at 25. NERC explained that, for Operating Instructions issued during non- emergency 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.'' \19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Id. at 26. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. Finally, NERC stated 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. 16. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4 includes seven requirements. Requirement R1 requires entities that can both issue and receive 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.\20\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See id. at 29. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. 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. 18. Requirement R5 requires balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators that issue an oral two-party, person-to-person ``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 an Emergency condition already exists, as further action or inaction could increase the harmful effects to the Bulk Electric System.'' \21\ NERC further explains, however, that applicable entities are expected to use three-part communications at all times when issuing and receiving Operating Instructions.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ Id. at 39. \22\ Id. at 25-26. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. Finally, Requirement R7 requires that when a balancing authority, reliability coordinator, or transmission operator issues a written or oral single-party to multiple-party ``burst'' Operating Instruction during an Emergency, they must confirm or verify that at least one receiver received the Operating Instruction. 20. NERC requested 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. C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 21. On September 19, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), along with the three new definitions referenced in the proposed standards (Operating Instruction, Interpersonal Communication, and Alternative Interpersonal Communication), the assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels, and the proposed implementation plan for each standard.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Communications Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 58709 (Sept. 30, 2014), 148 FERC ] 61,210 (2014) (NOPR). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the two revised standards addressed outstanding directives from Order No. 693, in that COM-001-2 has been expanded to include distribution providers and generator operators, and COM-002-4 has been expanded to include distribution providers.\24\ The Commission also stated that Reliability Standard COM-002-4 would enhance reliability by providing for improved communications through the required development of communication protocols. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Id. PP 22, 23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23. In the NOPR, the Commission also discussed the following specific matters and asked for further comment: (1) Responsibility for use of three-part communication by transmission owners and generator owners that receive Operator Instructions; (2) whether 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. 24. Timely comments on the NOPR were filed by: NERC; the Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Supply Association (EEI/ EPSA); ISO/RTO Council; the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA); International Transmission Company (ITC); Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power); and Tri-State G&T. In addition, on March 6, 2015, NERC filed Supplemental Comments. II. Discussion 25. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt our NOPR proposal and approve Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4, including the associated definitions, violation risk factors, violation severity levels, and implementation plans, as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. We note that all of the commenters that addressed the overall value of the Reliability Standards supported, or did not oppose, approval of the two revised standards. We determine that COM-001-2 will enhance reliability by expanding the [[Page 22389]] applicability of currently effective COM-001-1.1 to include generator operators and distribution providers as applicable entities under the COM-001 standard, and by expanding the applicability of COM-002-4 to include distribution providers. We further find that COM-002-4 will enhance reliability by requiring all issuers and recipients of Operating Instructions to develop communications protocols that require use of three-part communications, by requiring training on those protocols, and by adopting a zero-tolerance enforcement approach to the use of three-part communications during an Emergency. Moreover, we conclude that requiring issuers of Operating Instructions to perform an annual assessment of their personnel's adherence to the communications protocols will help ensure a high level of compliance with three-part communications at all times. 26. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directs that NERC develop one modification to COM-001-2 to address our concerns regarding applicability to certain internal communications, as discussed below. 27. Below, we discuss the following matters: (A) Ensuring use of three-part communications by generator owners and transmission owners; (B) internal communication capability requirements; (C) testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators; and (D) scope of the terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication. A. Applicability to Generator Owners and Transmission Owners NOPR 28. In the NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that generator owners and transmission owners are not ``applicable entities'' under either COM-001-2 or COM-002-4, although these entities could, under some circumstances, receive and act on Operating Instructions.\25\ The Commission sought comment on the obligations of an applicable entity when issuing an Operating Instruction to a transmission owner or generator owner, including information regarding which entity is responsible if the transmission owner or generator owner fails to perform three-part communication properly. In addition, the Commission asked NERC to explain its auditing practices when reviewing operating agreements between transmission operators and transmission owners, and between generator operators and generation owners, including NERC's approach to reviewing the protocols of any transmission owner or generator owner that acts on an Operating Instruction in order to ensure that three-part communication is used appropriately. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See id. PP 25-27. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments 29. All commenters that address this issue maintain that the two revised COM Reliability Standards appropriately identify the entities that issue and/or receive Operating Instructions, and that the two standards should not be expanded to include transmission owners or generator owners.\26\ NERC states that the two COM standards are appropriately tailored to apply to those functional entities that operate the Bulk-Power System as described in the NERC Functional Model and, therefore, apply to transmission operators and generator operators rather than transmission owners and generator owners. However, NERC acknowledges that ``there are instances in which Transmission Owners or Generator Owners may receive and act on Operating Instructions within areas operated by RTOs or ISOs.'' \27\ NERC asserts that, in these instances, the generator owner or transmission owner is ``acting on behalf of a registered Transmission Operator or Generator Operator under delegation as a member of the RTO or ISO.'' \28\ NERC asserts that, if performance of a reliability requirement is not achieved for a delegated task, ``the relevant Transmission Operator or Generator Operator responsible for compliance with the Reliability Standards is and has been held accountable.'' \29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See NERC Comments at 2, 8; EEI/EPSA Comments at 3-4; ISO/ RTO Council Comments at 4; ITC Comments at 4-5; Tri-State G&T Comments at 1. \27\ NERC Comments at 8. \28\ Id. \29\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30. NERC provides several examples of the various approaches to assigning compliance responsibility, including a Joint Registration Organization or Coordinated Functional Registration (as used in ERCOT), and assignment of compliance responsibility through operating agreements and manuals (as used in PJM). In both circumstances, NERC and Regional Entity auditors review the relevant documents assigning compliance responsibility ``to determine whether there are gaps in performance under the Reliability Standards as a result of the delegation.'' \30\ In addition, NERC states that ``the registered entity for a particular function retains responsibility for providing supporting documentation regarding how a task is delegated,'' and ``for providing proof of compliance under the Reliability Standards.'' \31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ Id. at 10. \31\ Id. at 11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31. EEI/EPSA maintains that generator owners do not receive and act on Operating Instructions, and therefore should not be included as applicable entities under the proposed standards. EEI/EPSA further maintains that transmission owners do not typically receive and act on Operating Instructions, except in regions where the transmission owners have arrangements to do so under specific operating contracts, and, in those cases, act ``sol[ely] at the direction of a responsible regional TOP, having broad area responsibilities.'' \32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ EEI/EPSA Comments at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32. Like NERC, ISO/RTO Council acknowledges that transmission owners and generator owners may act on Operating Instructions from an ISO/RTO, at least within some ISO/RTO regions, but states that in those cases the ISOs have market rules and operating procedures in place for communicating Operating Instructions to utilities and other market participants within their footprint. ISO/RTO Council also asserts that ISOs and RTOs do not control the registration of transmission owners and generator owners within their footprint, but that the entity and the relevant Regional Entity ``make the final determination on their registration.'' \33\ Finally, ISO/RTO Council suggests that applying the requirements of the proposed COM standards to generator owners and transmission owners ``seems to address an administrative concern as opposed to a reliability concern,'' given that the ``core reliability issue at hand is determining whether the RC, BA or TOP command was followed by the relevant recipient,'' and given that ISOs and RTOs have market rules or tariff provisions in place that require strict adherence by utilities and market participants.\34\ ISO/RTO Council also asserts that, if an ISO or RTO issues a command to an entity that is not registered as a transmission operator or generator operator, and there is a three-part communication failure resulting in an enforcement action, then the NERC Rules of Procedure should be used to hold that entity responsible.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3. \34\ Id. \35\ Id. at 4 (asserting that the NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 4C, Section 5.11 allows for an ISO or RTO to include in an enforcement proceeding an entity that causes or contributes to an alleged violation of a Reliability Standard). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33. ITC asserts that Operating Instructions, as defined by NERC, [[Page 22390]] cannot apply to a generator owner or transmission owner. ITC raises a related question, however, as to whether a transmission operator can issue an Operating Instruction to another transmission operator under the proposed Reliability Standards.\36\ ITC seeks confirmation from the Commission that a transmission operator cannot issue such an instruction or directive to another transmission operator, or if no such confirmation is given, ITC asks that the Commission ``explain the basis and process under which a Transmission Operator could issue such an Operating Instruction.'' \37\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ ITC Comments at 5. \37\ Id. at 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34. Idaho Power asserts that COM-002-4 does not apply to generator owners or transmission owners, without further discussion of whether such entities could ever receive and act on Operating Instructions as defined by NERC. Tri-State G&T agrees that generator owners and transmission owners should not be added as applicable entities, as they rarely, if ever receive an Operating Instruction. Commission Determination 35. While several commenters have acknowledged that transmission owners and generator owners can receive and act on Operating Instructions in certain regions, we are persuaded that the proposed Reliability Standards need not be expanded to include those entities at this time. In doing so, we are persuaded by the explanation of NERC that ``[w]hile the Transmission Operator or Generator Operator may delegate tasks under the proposed Reliability Standards to other member entities within [an RTO or ISO], the Transmission Operator and Generator Operator retain responsibility for compliance with the Requirements in the proposed Reliability Standards.'' \38\ Moreover, we rely on NERC's explanation that NERC and Regional Entity auditors examine contractual arrangements ``to ascertain how tasks are delegated and to determine whether there are gaps in performance . . . as a result of the delegation. Responsibility will always rest with the entity registered with NERC as the Transmission Operator.'' \39\ Thus, in the PJM example, if a transmission owner with delegated operating responsibilities fails to use three-part communication as required under COM-002-4, the registered entity that has delegated the operating responsibilities will remain responsible for the violation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\ See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3-4; EEI/EPSA Comments at 3-4 (Commission approved Operating Agreements ``contractually bind TOs to act in conformance with TOP obligations''). \39\ NERC Comments at 10-11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36. ITC requests clarification whether or not a transmission operator can issue an Operating Instruction to another transmission operator, pursuant to COM-001-2 and COM-002-4. We find that the issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The two standards at issue in this proceeding relate to requirements for communications capability and communications protocols, and do not address the relative authorities as between functional entities to require another entity to modify its operations in real-time, which is more properly addressed in the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, including currently effective Reliability Standard TOP-1-1a.\40\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\ Requirement R1 of TOP-1-1a states that ``Each Transmission Operator shall have the responsibility and clear decision-making authority to take whatever actions are needed to ensure the reliability of its area and shall exercise specific authority to alleviate operating emergencies.'' The obligation of a functional entity to respond to an Operating Instruction is also expected to be more explicitly addressed in other TOP and IRO standards under development or awaiting Commission approval, including proposed Reliability Standard IRO-001-4, which requires transmission operators, balancing authorities, generator operators, and distribution providers to comply with their Reliability Coordinator's Operating Instructions except under certain described circumstances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Internal Communication Capability NOPR 37. In the NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that Reliability Standard COM-001-2 does not appear to carry forward an explicit requirement to maintain adequate internal communications capabilities, unlike the existing COM-001 standard, which states that each reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority ``shall provide adequate and reliable telecommunication facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information . . . internally.'' \41\ The Commission stated that maintaining adequate internal communications could be critical to reliability, pointing to specific recommendations in the 2003 Blackout Report. The Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to COM-001-2, 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.'' \42\ Alternatively, the Commission suggested that a requirement for internal communication capability could be considered to be implicit in the proposed requirements for communications capability between functional entities, even if those functional entities reside within the same utility, and sought comment on this suggested interpretation as well as the proposed directive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 28 (quoting COM-001-1.1, Requirement R1). \42\ Id. P 30. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments 38. NERC and most other commenters assert that Reliability Standard COM-002-4 can and should be read to apply to internal communications between functional entities within the same organization, as the Commission suggested in the NOPR.\43\ NERC and NRECA also assert that acceptance of this interpretation should eliminate the need for further modification to COM-002-4.\44\ ITC comments that COM-001-2 should apply to internal communications between different functional entities within the same organization but only ``when those communications are performed by means other than in direct, face-to-face situations.'' \45\ ITC continues, stating that ``[f]or entities performing multiple functions that are located in close proximity such that direct, face- to-face communication is available, ITC does not see a reliability need for a requirement for Alternative Interpersonal Communication, and believes the Standards should be interpreted as not requiring AIC in these situations.'' \46\ ITC also advocates that, if the Commission does not find that COM-001-2 as submitted includes these kinds of internal communications, the standard ought to be modified to do so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ NERC Comments at 13; see also, e.g., NRECA Comments at 1, Idaho Power Comments at 4, and Tri-State Comments at 1. \44\ NERC Comments at 13; NRECA Comments at 1-2. \45\ ITC Comments at 7. \46\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39. EEI/EPSA acknowledges that the approach taken in COM-001-2 is different than the currently-effective COM standard with respect to internal communications, but maintains that this change is consistent with results-based standards. EEI/EPSA maintains that ``a result-based standard should not need to specifically cite facility requirements or the specific internal communication obligations,'' and maintains that COM-001-2 properly specifies [[Page 22391]] communications capability ``at the Functional Entity level.'' \47\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ Id. at 4-5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission Determination 40. We agree with NERC and other commenters that Reliability Standard COM-001-2 applies to communications between functional entities within a single organization. For example, COM-001-2, Requirement R3, provides that ``each Transmission Operator shall have Interpersonal Communication capability'' with the reliability coordinator, and each balancing authority, distribution provider, and generator operator ``within its Transmission Operator Area.'' We agree with NERC, ITC and other commenters that a reasonable understanding of Requirement R3 is that the transmission operator must have Interpersonal Communication capability with a balancing authority, distribution provider and/or generator operator within the same organization. Moreover, we agree with ITC that the COM-001-2 requirements concerning Alternative Interpersonal Communication only apply when those communications are performed by means other than direct, face-to-face situations. 41. However, the application of COM-001-2 to different functional entities within the same organization, as discussed above, does not fully address our concern set forth in the NOPR regarding internal communications.\48\ In particular, the NOPR explained that Requirement R1.1 of currently-effective COM-001-1.1 provides that each reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority ``shall provide adequate and reliable telecommunication facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information . . . internally.'' This currently-effective Requirement applies more broadly to internal communications, including internal communications within the same functional entity. Thus, unlike the currently-effective Reliability Standard, COM-001-2 does not address the adequacy of internal telecommunications (or other internal communication systems) that may have an adverse effect on reliability, even within a single functional entity, including: (1) Communications between geographically separate control centers within the same functional entity; and (2) communications between a control center and field personnel. These scenarios present a gap in reliability of the Bulk-Power System that NERC should address. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, we direct NERC to develop modifications to COM-001-2, or to develop a new standard, to address our concerns regarding ensuring the adequacy of internal communications capability whenever internal communications could directly affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ See NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at PP 28-31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Testing Requirements for Distribution Providers and Generator Operators NOPR 42. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that Reliability Standard COM-001-2 did not include a requirement that distribution providers and generator operators test or actively monitor their telecommunications systems, but were merely required to consult with each affected entity to determine a mutually agreeable action for restoration whenever a failure is detected.\49\ The Commission asked for 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.'' \50\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 31 (citing to COM-001-2, Requirement R11). \50\ Id, (citing System Restoration Reliability Standards, Order No. 749, 134 FERC ] 61,215, at P 28 (2011)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments 43. NERC and the other commenters on this issue maintain that there is no need for a testing requirement for generator operators and distribution providers comparable to that required for reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission operators, because generator operators and distribution providers are required to maintain only primary Interpersonal Communication capability, which is tested through routine use.\51\ NERC further explains that its approach is consistent with the Commission's statement in Order No. 693 that ``[w]e expect the telecommunication requirements for all applicable entities will vary according to their roles and that these requirements will be developed under the Reliability Standards development process.'' \52\ NERC also explains that the standard drafting team found that the obligation to detect and address failures in a primary communication system, as set out in Requirement R11 of COM-001-2, is sufficient, given ``the limited impact a failure might have on Distribution Providers and Generator Operators overall.'' \53\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\ See, e.g., NERC Comments at 14 (``routine use is sufficient to demonstrate functionality of this . . . primary capability''); EEI/EPSA Comments at 5-6 (``a system in regular use would gain little through routine testing''); and ISO/RTO Council Comments at 6-7 (``capability will be `tested' through regular use''). \52\ NERC Comments at 14-15 (quoting Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 487). \53\ NERC Comments at 14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission Determination 44. We are persuaded by the comments of NERC and others that additional testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators are not necessary at this time. NERC and other commenters assert that the primary Interpersonal Communication systems used by a distribution provider or generator operator will effectively be tested through routine use, and that any potential failures in a given generator operator or distribution provider's external communication system will not have a substantial impact on the Bulk- Power System. In light of this explanation, as well as our recognition in Order No. 693 that telecommunication requirements for applicable entities will vary according to their roles, we decline to require any additional testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators at this time. D. Definition of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication NOPR 45. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification on the intended scope of the newly defined terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication.\54\ The Commission noted that NERC had explained the introduction of these terms as a means of eliminating the ambiguity in the terms ``adequate and reliable'' and ``redundant and diversely routed'' as currently used in Requirements R1 and R1.4 of COM-001-1.1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 32. As previously noted, NERC is proposing to define the 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46. The Commission raised two concerns about the new terms as used in proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-2. First, the Commission noted that the definitions do not state a minimum expectation of communication performance, such as speed and [[Page 22392]] quality.\55\ Second, the Commission asked for clarification as to whether Interpersonal Communication includes mediums used directly to exchange or transfer data, which communications appear to be covered under the currently-approved version of COM-001.\56\ The Commission, thus, asked for further explanation ``regarding acceptable (and unacceptable) performance of communication for both Interpersonal and Alternative Interpersonal Communications.'' \57\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 33. \56\ Id. As the Commission noted, COM-001-1.1, Requirement R1 addresses ``telecommunications facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information.'' \57\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments 47. With respect to minimum performance standards or specifications for the required communications mediums, none of the commenters believe such specifications are necessary or advisable. NERC maintains that additional specifications are not necessary because the standard as written requires applicable entities to have the working capability needed to maintain reliability.\58\ EEI/EPSA agrees that performance specifications are not necessary, and questions whether it is even possible to set such standards given the diversity of systems used.\59\ ISO/RTO Council asserts that it would be inadvisable to include technical specifications on the communication mediums required, as it could result in the use of the least expensive medium that could achieve compliance.\60\ Idaho Power suggests that the kinds of measurable characteristics that might be appropriate for use to establish minimum performance levels for data exchanges are not available here, because the proposed COM standards do not include data exchange. Tri-State G&T states that the most common expected mediums for communication under the standard will likely be email and telephone, and that there is no need to include minimum expectations of speed or performance because ``all entities are focused on reliability and would always use the fastest and most reliable means of communication.'' \61\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \58\ NERC Comments at 4, 15-16. \59\ EEI/EPSA Comments at 6-7. \60\ ISO/RTO Council at 5. ISO/RTO Council also notes that its members already have requirements in place with their stakeholders on necessary technical requirements for voice and data exchange. \61\ Tri-State G&T Comments at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48. With respect to the transfer of data as opposed to communications between persons, all of the commenters to directly address the issue acknowledge that proposed Reliability Standard COM- 001-2 is not intended to, and does not, cover data exchanges or transfers. NERC (through its initial and supplemental comments) and ISO/RTO Council maintain that COM-001-2 need not include requirements regarding data transfer capability because such capability is covered under other existing or proposed standards. 49. With respect to existing standards, NERC states that the standard drafting team determined that IRO-010-1a and IRO-014-1 ``provided the necessary mandatory Requirements to ensure proper data exchange is occurring.'' \62\ ISO/RTO Council provides several additional examples of existing Reliability Standards that address data exchange and transfer capability, including BAL-004-2b, R14; IRO-002-2, R1; and TOP-006-2, R1.\63\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \62\ NERC Comments at 16. See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at 5-6 (noting that the standard drafting team explained that data communication is covered under Requirement R3 of IRO-010-1). \63\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 6, n.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50. With respect to standards under development, NERC asserts that four proposed IRO and TOP standards, now approved by the Board, ``include specific coverage related to data exchange,'' and ``collectively require data exchange capability'' for reliability coordinators, transmission operators, balancing authorities, generator operators, and distribution providers.\64\ NERC describes the specific requirements in proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, IRO-010-2, TOP-003-3, and IRO-002-4 that will address data exchange capabilities and/or data exchange specifications for applicable functional entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \64\ NERC Supp. Comments at 3. NERC identified these same four standards in its Initial Comments, but provides a more detailed discussion of the proposed standards and their status in its Supplemental Comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51. EEI/EPSA and Idaho Power also maintain that the term Interpersonal Communication does not cover data exchange, with EEI/EPSA asserting that the phrase requires a system ``that enables effective communications between two or more individuals.'' \65\ Moreover, EEI/ EPSA understands the term Alternative Interpersonal Communication to require certain entities to have backup communications that do not utilize the same infrastructure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\ EEI/EPSA at 7. Similarly, Idaho Power states that the term was intended to include voice and electronic messaging between people, and exclude data exchanges, such as SCADA and metering data. Idaho Power Comments at 4-5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52. ITC asserts that the definitions of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication ``could ostensibly be interpreted to extend the Standard beyond verbal and written communications and Operating Instructions to include the transmission of electronic data between control systems that are monitored/used by system operators.'' \66\ ITC warns that ``[i]f the Commission does indeed intend the scope of the Standards to extend to such electronic data transmission, the requirement for Alternative Interpersonal Communication may not be achievable'' because ``[i]t may simply not be possible to maintain a second pathway for the transmission of such data, whether by dint of data format, system compatibility, or the feasibility of installing a redundant system.'' \67\ ITC accordingly recommends that if an alternative pathway for data transmission is deemed necessary, then the Commission should retain the language from COM-001-1 which requires ``redundant and diversely routed systems.'' \68\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \66\ ITC Comments at 8. \67\ Id. \68\ Id. at 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission Determination 53. First, we are satisfied that technical specifications regarding minimum levels of performance for the mediums used to satisfy the requirements of COM-001-2 are not necessary at this time. In doing so, we note NERC's explanation that the requirements in COM-001-2 are ``absolute'' and that entities must ``have the capability in place to `establish Interpersonal Communication capabilities necessary to maintain reliability.' '' \69\ Moreover, we are persuaded by the commenters that setting performance criteria for the email and telephonic communications at issue here is both impractical and unnecessary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \69\ NERC Comments at 15-16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54. Second, the NOPR raised concerns pertaining to whether COM-001- 2 addresses ``facilities that directly exchange or transfer data.'' \70\ In response, NERC states that data exchange capability is being addressed in proposed IRO and TOP standards.\71\ Accordingly, we do not make any determinations regarding data exchange capability in the immediate rulemaking. Rather, based on NERC's explanation, we will address any issues regarding [[Page 22393]] data exchange capability in the pending rulemaking pertaining to NERC's proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \70\ See NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 33. \71\ See NERC Supplemental Filing at 2-3. On March 18, 2015, NERC submitted a petition for approval of proposed Transmission Operations and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, Docket No. RM15-15-000, pending before the Commission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Information Collection Statement 55. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\72\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\73\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \72\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012). \73\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2013). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56. The Commission solicited 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 asked that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates were generated. 57. The Final Rule approves Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4, as well as NERC's proposed retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standards COM-001-1.1 and COM-002-2. Reliability Standard COM-001-2 establishes Interpersonal Communication capability necessary to maintain reliability, while Reliability Standard COM-002-4 improves 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: Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM- 002-4 do not require responsible entities to file information with the Commission. However, the 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, 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 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, Requirement R1), (2) maintain evidence of required training, assessments, and use of three-part communications, as applicable (an on-going burden under COM-002-4 Requirements 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 Requirements 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: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \74\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information, as of March 19, 2015, for an electrical engineer ($65.34/hour for review and documentation) and for an Information and Record Clerk ($33.42/hour for record retention). These figures have been updated since issuance of the NOPR, and are available at: http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000. The first row of the table (one- time burden) is done by an engineer, and the latter three rows (ongoing burden) are done by a file clerk. \75\ This dollar burden figure in row 3 of this chart was incorrectly stated in the NOPR, which led to an incorrect estimate of the total dollar burden for the industry in row 5. Both estimates as stated in the NOPR were higher than the corrected and updated estimate reflected in this Final Rule. \76\ 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual number Information collection Number and type of respondents of responses Total number Avg. burden & cost per Total annual burden hours & requirement per respondent of responses response \74\ total annual cost \75\ (1)........................... (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4).................... (3)*(4) = (5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (One-time) Development of 212........................... 1 212 8 hrs. & $522.72....... 1,696 hours & $110,816.64 Communication Protocols [COM- (BA, RC & TOP)................ 002-4 R1]. (On-going) Maintain evidence of 1,217......................... 1 1,217 4 hrs. & $133.68....... 4,868 hours & $162,688.56 Interpersonal Communication (DP & GOP).................... capability [COM-001-2 R7 and R8].\76\ (On-going) Maintain evidence of 212........................... 1 212 8 hrs. & $267.36....... 1,696 hours & $56,680.32 training and assessments [COM- (BA, RC & TOP)................ 002-4 R2, R4, R5 and R6]. (On-going) Maintain evidence of 1,217......................... 1 1,217 8 hrs. & $267.36....... 9,736 hours & $ 325,377.12 training [COM-002-4 R3, and R6]. (DP & GOP).................... [[Page 22394]] Total....................... .............................. .............. 2,858 ....................... 17,996 hours & $655,562.64 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: COM Reliability Standards. Action: Proposed FERC-725V. OMB Control No: 1902-0277. Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for- profit institutions. Frequency of Responses: One-time and ongoing. Necessity of the Information: The approval of Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 implements 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 Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the purpose of the 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 Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System and determined that the 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 the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 58. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873]. 59. Comments concerning the information collections approved in this Final Rule 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: [email protected]. 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 60. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \77\ generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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).\78\ Reliability Standard COM-002-4 may apply to as many as 1,279 entities.\79\ Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 934 of the 1,279 entities are small entities.\80\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \77\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612. \78\ The number of small distribution providers required to comply with the COM standards may decrease significantly. In March 2015, the Commission approved revisions to the NERC Rules of Procedure to implement NERC's ``risk based registration'' program, which raised the registry threshold for distribution providers from a 25 MW to 75 MW peak load. North American Electric Reliability Corp., 150 FERC ] 61,213 (2015). \79\ The 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. \80\ 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 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. 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 Reliability Standard COM-002-4 will incur one-time compliance costs of about $523 (i.e. development of communication protocols), plus on-going annual costs of about $790 (i.e. performing training and maintaining evidence of training and assessments).\81\ The Commission estimates that each of the small distribution provider and generator operator entities potentially subject to Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 will incur on-going annual costs of about $887 (i.e. performing training and maintaining evidence of interpersonal communication capability and of training).\82\ 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 Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \81\ The ongoing annual costs for both paperwork and training are based on (8 hours * $33.42) + (8 * $65.34) = $790.16 or approximately $790.00. \82\ The ongoing annual cost is based on (12 * $33.42) + (8 * $60.70) = $886.64 or approximately $887.00. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Environmental Analysis 62. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\83\ 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.\84\ The actions approved herein fall within this [[Page 22395]] categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \83\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987). \84\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. Document Availability 63. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 64. 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. 65. 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 [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502- 8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]. VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 66. This Final Rule is effective June 22, 2015. 67. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\85\ The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \85\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. By direction of the Commission. Issued: April 16, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-09225 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22385
rates are just and reasonable and protect The Commission orders: Xcel Energy Companies
natural gas consumers from excessive The Commission adopts the Policy [FR Doc. 2015–09226 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am]
costs Statement and supporting analysis BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
129. Internal Review: The contained in the body of this order.
Commission has reviewed the guidance
in the Policy Statement and has By the Commission.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
determined that the information is Issued: April 16, 2015.
necessary. These requirements conform Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Federal Energy Regulatory
to the Commission’s plan for efficient Deputy Secretary. Commission
information collection, communication,
Note: The following appendix will not 18 CFR Part 40
and management within the natural gas
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
pipeline industry. The Commission has [Docket No. RM14–13–000; Order No. 808]
assured itself, by means of its internal Appendix—List of Commenters
review, that there is specific, objective Communications Reliability Standards
support for the burden estimates American Forest & Paper Association
associated with the information American Gas Association AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory
requirements. American Midstream, LLC Commission.
American Public Gas Association ACTION: Final rule.
130. Interested persons may obtain
Beatrice Gahman
information on the reporting Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company
requirements by contacting the SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Power
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP Act, the Commission approves two
following: Federal Energy Regulatory Calpine Corporation
Commission, 888 First Street NE., revised Reliability Standards, COM–
Canadian Association of Petroleum
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Producers 001–2 (Communications) and COM–
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. 002–4 (Operating Personnel
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: Clean Air Task Force Communications Protocols), developed
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC by the North American Electric
131. Comments concerning the Deep Gulf Energy LP Reliability Corporation (NERC), which
collection of information and the El Paso Municipal Customer Group the Commission has certified as the
Elizabeth Balogh Electric Reliability Organization
associated burden estimate should be
Energy XXI Ltd. responsible for developing and
sent the Commission by June 22, 2015. Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation enforcing mandatory Reliability
IV. Document Availability Law Foundation and the Sustainable FERC
Standards. The two revised Reliability
Project
132. In addition to publishing the full Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary. United States Standards will enhance reliability by,
text of this document in the Federal Department of Energy among other things, requiring adoption
Register, the Commission provides all Fairfax Hutter of predefined communication protocols,
interested persons an opportunity to Helis Oil and Gas Company, L.L.C. annual assessment of those protocols
view and/or print the contents of this Independent Oil & Gas Association of West and operating personnel’s adherence
document via the Internet through Virginia, Inc. thereto, training on the protocols, and
FERC’s Home Page (http:// Independent Petroleum Association of use of three-part communications. In
www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s Public America addition, the Commission directs NERC
Reference Room during normal business Indicated Shippers to develop a modification to Reliability
Industrial Energy Consumers of America
hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard COM–001–2 that addresses
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Kansas Corporation Commission internal communications capabilities
Washington, DC 20426. Karen Feridum that could involve the issuance or
133. From FERC’s Home Page on the Kinder Morgan Interstate Pipelines receipt of Operating Instructions or
Internet, this information is available on Laura Pritchard other communications that could have
eLibrary. The full text of this document Michigan Public Service Commission an impact on reliability.
is available on eLibrary in PDF and Missouri Public Service Commission DATES: This rule will become effective
Microsoft Word format for viewing, Municipal Defense Group June 22, 2015.
printing, and/or downloading. To access Natural Gas Supply Association
New York Public Service Commission FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
this document in eLibrary, type the Vincent Le (Technical Information),
docket number excluding the last three Norman W. Torkelson
North Carolina Utilities Commission Office of Electric Reliability, Federal
digits of this document in the docket Patriots Energy Group Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
number field. Pipeline Safety Coalition First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
134. User assistance is available for Process Gas Consumers Group and the (202) 502–6204, Vincent.le@ferc.gov.
eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during American Forest & Paper Association Michael Gandolfo (Technical
normal business hours from FERC Secretary of Energy Information), Office of Electric
Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll Southern Company Services
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory
free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
Tenneesse Valley Authority Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6817,
Public Reference Room at (202) 502– Teresa Ecker
The Laclede Group, Inc. Michael.gandolfo@ferc.gov.
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
U.S. Department of Energy Julie Greenisen (Legal Information),
Public Reference Room at U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline Office of the General Counsel, Federal
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. and Hazardous Materials Safety Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
V. Effective Date and Congressional Administration First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
Notification WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (202) 502–6362, julie.greenisen@
Western Tennessee Municipal Group
135. This Policy Statement will ferc.gov.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company and
become effective October 1, 2015. Wisconsin Gas LLC SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/1.svg)
![22386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Order No. 808 Final Rule enhance reliability over the currently- In addition, the Commission directed
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the effective versions of these NERC to develop modifications to (1)
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Communications (COM) standards in include distribution providers as
Commission approves two Reliability several respects. For example, the applicable entities, and (2) establish
Standards, COM–001–2 Reliability Standards as modified tightened communications protocols,
(Communications) and COM–002–4 expand applicability to include especially for communications during
(Operating Personnel Communications generator operators and distribution alerts and emergencies.9
Protocols), developed by the North providers, eliminate certain ambiguities 6. NERC initiated Project 2006–06 to
American Electric Reliability in the currently-effective standards, and address the Order No. 693 directives
Corporation (NERC), which the clarify that the use of three-part related to Reliability Standards COM–
Commission has certified as the Electric communication is required for issuance 001 and COM–002, resulting in two
Reliability Organization responsible for and receipt of all Operating Instructions, proposed Reliability Standards, COM–
developing and enforcing mandatory with a zero-tolerance approach to 001–2 and COM–002–3. NERC also
Reliability Standards. The Commission enforcement of that requirement during initiated Project 2007–02 to develop a
also approves three new defined terms an emergency. However, we are not new Reliability Standard (COM–003)
for addition to the NERC Glossary of persuaded that COM–001–2 adequately that would require real-time system
Terms Used in Reliability Standards covers all situations in which Operating operators to use standardized
(NERC Glossary), violation risk factors, Instructions are issued or received and, communication protocols during normal
violation severity levels, and NERC’s therefore, direct NERC to develop a and emergency operations, in order to
proposed implementation plan for both modification to that standard that improve situational awareness and
revised standards. Further, pursuant to addresses our concern, as further shorten response time. The two projects
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the discussed below. ultimately merged when drafts of
Commission directs that NERC develop Reliability Standard COM–002–3 and
I. Background COM–003–1 were combined into a
one modification to Reliability Standard
COM–001–2 that addresses internal A. Regulatory Background single proposed Reliability Standard,
communications capabilities to the 4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a COM–002–4.
extent that such communications could Commission-certified Electric B. NERC Petition
involve the issuance or receipt of Reliability Organization (ERO) to 7. On May 14, 2014, NERC filed a
Operating Instructions or other develop mandatory and enforceable petition seeking approval of two revised
communications that could have an Reliability Standards, subject to communication standards, COM–001–2
impact on reliability. Commission review and approval.4 (Communications) and COM–002–4
2. Reliability Standard COM–001–2 is Once approved, the Reliability (Operating Personnel Communications
intended to establish a clear set of Standards may be enforced by the ERO Protocols).10 Proposed Reliability
requirements for the communications subject to Commission oversight, or by Standard COM–001–2 establishes a set
capabilities that applicable functional the Commission independently.5 In of requirements for the communications
entities must have in place and 2006, the Commission certified NERC as capabilities that various functional
maintain. Reliability Standard COM– the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.6 entities must maintain to enable
002–4 requires applicable entities to 5. The Commission approved
communications with other identified
develop communication protocols with Reliability Standard COM–001–1 in
functional entities. Proposed Reliability
certain minimum requirements, Order No. 693.7 In addition, the
Standard COM–002–4 requires
including use of three-part Commission directed NERC to develop
applicable entities to develop
communication when issuing Operating modifications to COM–001–1 to: (1)
documented communications protocols.
Instructions.2 Reliability Standard expand the applicability of the standard
NERC stated in its petition that the
COM–002–4 also sets out certain to include generator operators and
proposed standards are intended to
communications training requirements distribution providers, (2) identify
address all relevant Commission
for all issuers and recipients of specific requirements for
directives from Order No. 693. In
Operating Instructions, and establishes a telecommunications facilities for use in
addition, NERC stated that the revisions
flexible enforcement approach for normal and emergency conditions that
reflected in proposed COM–002–4 are
failure to use three-part communication reflect the roles of the applicable
intended to address Recommendation
during non-emergencies and a ‘‘zero- entities, and (3) include adequate
No. 26 from the final report on the
tolerance,’’ i.e., without exception, flexibility for compliance to allow for
the adoption of new technologies and August 2003 blackout issued by the
enforcement approach for failure to use
three-part communication during an cost-effective solutions.8 Similarly, the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task
emergency.3 Commission approved Reliability Force (Blackout Report) concerning the
3. We find that Reliability Standards Standard COM–002–2 in Order No. 693. need to ‘‘[t]ighten communications
COM–001–2 and COM–002–4 will protocols, especially for
4 16 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d).
communications during alerts and
1 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012). 5 See id. at 824o(e). emergencies.’’ 11
2 NERC proposes to define Operating Instruction 6 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117 9 Id.PP 531–535, 540.
as ‘‘[a] command by operating personnel
responsible for the Real-time operation of the FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. 10 The COM Reliability Standards are not attached
interconnected Bulk Electric System to change or FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). to the Final Rule. The complete text of the two
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
preserve the state, status, output, or input of an 7 See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Reliability Standards is available on the
Element of the Bulk Electric System or Facility of Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Commission’s eLibrary document retrieval system
the Bulk Electric System. (A discussion of general Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 508, order on reh’g, Order No. in Docket No. RM14–13 and is posted on the ERO’s
information and of potential options or alternatives 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007); see also North Web site, available at: http://www.nerc.com.
. . . is not considered an Operating Instruction.).’’ American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. 11 NERC Petition at 3 (quoting U.S.-Canada Power
3 See NERC Petition at 3 (‘‘during Emergencies, RD09–2–000 (2009) (delegated letter order System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the
operating personnel must use the documented accepting Reliability Standard COM–001–1.1). August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and
communication protocols for three-part 8 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at Canada: Causes and Recommendations at 3 (April
communications without exception.’’). P 508. 2004) (Blackout Report), available at http://
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22387
Reliability Standard COM–001–2 operator. Under Requirement R3, Communication and Alternative
8. NERC stated in its petition that Interpersonal Communication capability Interpersonal Communication; (3) not
Reliability Standard COM–001–2 is required between the transmission requiring specific technology or systems
establishes requirements for operator’s reliability coordinator, each to be utilized; and (4) including the
Interpersonal Communication balancing authority within its distribution provider and generator
capabilities necessary to maintain transmission operator area, each operator as applicable entities.14 NERC
reliability. NERC explained that distribution provider and generator added that COM–001–2 also addresses
proposed Reliability Standard COM– operator within its transmission relevant directives from Order No. 693
001–2 applies to reliability coordinators, operator area, and each adjacent by (1) adding generator operators and
balancing authorities, transmission transmission operator whether distribution providers as applicable
operators, generator operators, and synchronously or asynchronously entities; (2) identifying specific
distribution providers. The proposed connected. Under Requirement R4, requirements for telecommunications
Reliability Standard includes eleven Alternative Interpersonal capabilities for use in all operating
Communication capability must be conditions that reflect the roles of the
requirements and two new defined
designated between the transmission applicable entities and their impact on
terms, ‘‘Interpersonal Communication’’
operator’s reliability coordinator, each reliability; and (3) including adequate
and ‘‘Alternative Interpersonal
balancing authority within its flexibility to permit the adoption of new
Communication,’’ that, according to
transmission operator area, and each technologies.
NERC, collectively provide a
adjacent transmission operator. 13. NERC proposed to retire currently-
comprehensive approach to establishing
Requirements R5 and R6 set out similar effective COM–001–1.1 when proposed
communications capabilities necessary
requirements for each balancing Reliability Standard COM–001–2
to maintain reliability.12 NERC stated
authority, again identifying the specific becomes effective, with the exception of
that the definitions provide clarity that
functional entities for which the Requirement R4, which addresses
an entity’s communication capability balancing authority must maintain
must be redundant and that each of the communications protocols. NERC
Interpersonal Communication capability requested that Requirement R4 be
capabilities must not utilize the same and for which it must designate
medium. According to NERC, the retired when proposed Reliability
Alternative Interpersonal Standard COM–002–4 becomes
definitions improve the language used Communication capability.
in the current Reliability Standard by effective.15
10. Requirements R7 and R8 address
eliminating the use of the more the communications capability that Reliability Standard COM–002–4
ambiguous phrases ‘‘adequate and distribution providers and generator 14. NERC stated in its petition that
reliable’’ and ‘‘redundant and diversely operators must maintain, with each Reliability Standard COM–002–4
routed’’ that relate to required to have Interpersonal improves communications surrounding
‘‘telecommunications facilities for the Communications capability with its the issuance of Operating Instructions
exchange of Interconnection and balancing authority and its transmission by requiring the use of predefined
operating information.’’ 13 operator. communications protocols to reduce the
9. The first six requirements of COM– 11. Requirement R9 requires each possibility of miscommunication that
001–2 address the Interpersonal reliability coordinator, transmission could lead to action or inaction harmful
Communication capability and operator, and balancing authority to test to reliability.16 NERC noted that the
Alternative Interpersonal its Alternative Interpersonal proposed standard requires use of the
Communication capability of the Communication capability at least once same protocols regardless of operating
reliability coordinator, transmission each calendar month, and to initiate condition (i.e., Emergency or non-
operator, and balancing authority action to repair or designate a emergency), but requires operating
functions. Requirement R1 requires each replacement if the test is unsuccessful. personnel to use the documented
reliability coordinator to have Requirement R10 requires the same communication protocols for three-part
Interpersonal Communication capability entities to notify applicable entities (as communications ‘‘without exception’’
with all transmission operators and identified in R1, R3 and R5) of the during an Emergency.17 As NERC
balancing authorities within its detection of an Interpersonal explained:
reliability coordinator area, and with Communication capability failure that
each adjacent reliability coordinator lasts 30 minutes or longer. Finally, [T]he proposed Reliability Standard
within the same interconnection. employs the phrase ‘‘Operating Instruction
Requirement R11 requires distribution during an Emergency’’ in certain
Requirement R2 requires each reliability providers and generator operators to
coordinator to designate Alternative consult with affected balancing 14 NERC Petition at 18.
Interpersonal Communication capability authorities and transmission operators 15 Id. at 22.
with those same identified entities. when a failure is detected in their 16 Id. at 23. NERC stated that COM–002–3 (which
Requirements R3 and R4 set out the Interpersonal Communication was adopted by the NERC Board but not submitted
communications capability capability, and to determine a mutually to the Commission for approval) is proposed for
retirement in the Implementation Plan because the
requirements for a transmission agreeable action for the restoration of proposed Reliability Standard has been combined
that capability. with proposed COM–003–1 to create proposed
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/ 12. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM–002–4. NERC stated that
DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf). proposed Reliability Standard COM– Reliability Standard COM–002–3 has not been
12 Id. at 15. NERC defines Interpersonal submitted to the Commission for approval,
001–2 improves the currently-effective
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Communication as ‘‘[a]ny medium that allows two therefore, the currently effective version of COM–
or more individuals to interact, consult, or Reliability Standard by: (1) Eliminating 002 is COM–002–2. Id. at 23 n.43. Reliability
exchange information’’ and Alternative terms that do not adequately specify the Standard COM–002–4 combines proposed
Interpersonal Communication as ‘‘[a]ny desired actions that applicable entities Reliability Standard COM–002–3 and the former
Interpersonal Communication that is able to serve are expected to take in relation to their draft COM–003–1 into a single standard that
as a substitute for, and does not utilize the same addresses communications protocols for operating
infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal telecommunication facilities; (2) clearly personnel in Emergency and non-emergency
Communication used for day-to-day operation.’’ Id. identifying the need for applicable conditions. Id. at 23–24.
13 Id. at 15–16. entities to be capable of Interpersonal 17 Id. at 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22389
applicability of currently effective approach to reviewing the protocols of for providing supporting documentation
COM–001–1.1 to include generator any transmission owner or generator regarding how a task is delegated,’’ and
operators and distribution providers as owner that acts on an Operating ‘‘for providing proof of compliance
applicable entities under the COM–001 Instruction in order to ensure that three- under the Reliability Standards.’’ 31
standard, and by expanding the part communication is used 31. EEI/EPSA maintains that generator
applicability of COM–002–4 to include appropriately. owners do not receive and act on
distribution providers. We further find Operating Instructions, and therefore
Comments should not be included as applicable
that COM–002–4 will enhance
reliability by requiring all issuers and 29. All commenters that address this entities under the proposed standards.
recipients of Operating Instructions to issue maintain that the two revised EEI/EPSA further maintains that
develop communications protocols that COM Reliability Standards transmission owners do not typically
require use of three-part appropriately identify the entities that receive and act on Operating
communications, by requiring training issue and/or receive Operating Instructions, except in regions where
on those protocols, and by adopting a Instructions, and that the two standards the transmission owners have
zero-tolerance enforcement approach to should not be expanded to include arrangements to do so under specific
the use of three-part communications transmission owners or generator operating contracts, and, in those cases,
during an Emergency. Moreover, we owners.26 NERC states that the two act ‘‘sol[ely] at the direction of a
conclude that requiring issuers of COM standards are appropriately responsible regional TOP, having broad
Operating Instructions to perform an tailored to apply to those functional area responsibilities.’’ 32
annual assessment of their personnel’s entities that operate the Bulk-Power 32. Like NERC, ISO/RTO Council
adherence to the communications System as described in the NERC acknowledges that transmission owners
protocols will help ensure a high level Functional Model and, therefore, apply and generator owners may act on
of compliance with three-part to transmission operators and generator Operating Instructions from an ISO/
communications at all times. operators rather than transmission RTO, at least within some ISO/RTO
26. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of owners and generator owners. However, regions, but states that in those cases the
the FPA, the Commission directs that NERC acknowledges that ‘‘there are ISOs have market rules and operating
NERC develop one modification to instances in which Transmission procedures in place for communicating
COM–001–2 to address our concerns Owners or Generator Owners may Operating Instructions to utilities and
regarding applicability to certain receive and act on Operating other market participants within their
internal communications, as discussed Instructions within areas operated by footprint. ISO/RTO Council also asserts
below. RTOs or ISOs.’’ 27 NERC asserts that, in that ISOs and RTOs do not control the
27. Below, we discuss the following these instances, the generator owner or registration of transmission owners and
matters: (A) Ensuring use of three-part transmission owner is ‘‘acting on behalf generator owners within their footprint,
communications by generator owners of a registered Transmission Operator or but that the entity and the relevant
and transmission owners; (B) internal Generator Operator under delegation as Regional Entity ‘‘make the final
communication capability requirements; a member of the RTO or ISO.’’ 28 NERC determination on their registration.’’ 33
(C) testing requirements for distribution asserts that, if performance of a Finally, ISO/RTO Council suggests that
providers and generator operators; and reliability requirement is not achieved applying the requirements of the
(D) scope of the terms Interpersonal for a delegated task, ‘‘the relevant proposed COM standards to generator
Communication and Alternative Transmission Operator or Generator owners and transmission owners
Interpersonal Communication. Operator responsible for compliance ‘‘seems to address an administrative
with the Reliability Standards is and has concern as opposed to a reliability
A. Applicability to Generator Owners
been held accountable.’’ 29 concern,’’ given that the ‘‘core reliability
and Transmission Owners NOPR 30. NERC provides several examples issue at hand is determining whether
28. In the NOPR, the Commission of the various approaches to assigning the RC, BA or TOP command was
raised the concern that generator owners compliance responsibility, including a followed by the relevant recipient,’’ and
and transmission owners are not Joint Registration Organization or given that ISOs and RTOs have market
‘‘applicable entities’’ under either Coordinated Functional Registration (as rules or tariff provisions in place that
COM–001–2 or COM–002–4, although used in ERCOT), and assignment of require strict adherence by utilities and
these entities could, under some compliance responsibility through market participants.34 ISO/RTO Council
circumstances, receive and act on operating agreements and manuals (as also asserts that, if an ISO or RTO issues
Operating Instructions.25 The used in PJM). In both circumstances, a command to an entity that is not
Commission sought comment on the NERC and Regional Entity auditors registered as a transmission operator or
obligations of an applicable entity when review the relevant documents generator operator, and there is a three-
issuing an Operating Instruction to a assigning compliance responsibility ‘‘to part communication failure resulting in
transmission owner or generator owner, determine whether there are gaps in an enforcement action, then the NERC
including information regarding which performance under the Reliability Rules of Procedure should be used to
entity is responsible if the transmission Standards as a result of the hold that entity responsible.35
owner or generator owner fails to delegation.’’ 30 In addition, NERC states 33. ITC asserts that Operating
perform three-part communication that ‘‘the registered entity for a Instructions, as defined by NERC,
properly. In addition, the Commission particular function retains responsibility
asked NERC to explain its auditing 31 Id. at 11.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
practices when reviewing operating 26 See NERC Comments at 2, 8; EEI/EPSA 32 EEI/EPSA Comments at 3.
agreements between transmission Comments at 3–4; ISO/RTO Council Comments at 33 ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3.
4; ITC Comments at 4–5; Tri-State G&T Comments 34 Id.
operators and transmission owners, and at 1. 35 Id. at 4 (asserting that the NERC Rules of
between generator operators and 27 NERC Comments at 8.
Procedure, Appendix 4C, Section 5.11 allows for an
generation owners, including NERC’s 28 Id.
ISO or RTO to include in an enforcement
29 Id.
proceeding an entity that causes or contributes to
25 See id. PP 25–27. 30 Id. at 10. an alleged violation of a Reliability Standard).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/5.svg)
![22390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
cannot apply to a generator owner or COM–002–4, the registered entity that communications that could have an
transmission owner. ITC raises a related has delegated the operating impact on reliability.’’ 42 Alternatively,
question, however, as to whether a responsibilities will remain responsible the Commission suggested that a
transmission operator can issue an for the violation. requirement for internal communication
Operating Instruction to another 36. ITC requests clarification whether capability could be considered to be
transmission operator under the or not a transmission operator can issue implicit in the proposed requirements
proposed Reliability Standards.36 ITC an Operating Instruction to another for communications capability between
seeks confirmation from the transmission operator, pursuant to functional entities, even if those
Commission that a transmission COM–001–2 and COM–002–4. We find functional entities reside within the
operator cannot issue such an that the issue is beyond the scope of this same utility, and sought comment on
instruction or directive to another rulemaking. The two standards at issue this suggested interpretation as well as
transmission operator, or if no such in this proceeding relate to requirements the proposed directive.
confirmation is given, ITC asks that the for communications capability and
Commission ‘‘explain the basis and communications protocols, and do not Comments
process under which a Transmission address the relative authorities as
Operator could issue such an Operating between functional entities to require 38. NERC and most other commenters
Instruction.’’ 37 another entity to modify its operations assert that Reliability Standard COM–
34. Idaho Power asserts that COM– in real-time, which is more properly 002–4 can and should be read to apply
002–4 does not apply to generator addressed in the TOP and IRO to internal communications between
owners or transmission owners, without Reliability Standards, including functional entities within the same
further discussion of whether such currently effective Reliability Standard organization, as the Commission
entities could ever receive and act on TOP–1–1a.40 suggested in the NOPR.43 NERC and
Operating Instructions as defined by NRECA also assert that acceptance of
B. Internal Communication Capability this interpretation should eliminate the
NERC. Tri-State G&T agrees that
generator owners and transmission NOPR need for further modification to COM–
owners should not be added as 002–4.44 ITC comments that COM–001–
37. In the NOPR, the Commission
applicable entities, as they rarely, if ever 2 should apply to internal
raised the concern that Reliability
receive an Operating Instruction. Standard COM–001–2 does not appear communications between different
to carry forward an explicit requirement functional entities within the same
Commission Determination organization but only ‘‘when those
to maintain adequate internal
35. While several commenters have communications are performed by
communications capabilities, unlike the
acknowledged that transmission owners means other than in direct, face-to-face
existing COM–001 standard, which
and generator owners can receive and situations.’’ 45 ITC continues, stating
states that each reliability coordinator,
act on Operating Instructions in certain that ‘‘[f]or entities performing multiple
transmission operator, and balancing
regions, we are persuaded that the functions that are located in close
authority ‘‘shall provide adequate and
proposed Reliability Standards need not proximity such that direct, face-to-face
reliable telecommunication facilities for
be expanded to include those entities at communication is available, ITC does
the exchange of Interconnection and
this time. In doing so, we are persuaded not see a reliability need for a
operating information . . .
by the explanation of NERC that requirement for Alternative
internally.’’ 41 The Commission stated
‘‘[w]hile the Transmission Operator or Interpersonal Communication, and
that maintaining adequate internal
Generator Operator may delegate tasks believes the Standards should be
communications could be critical to
under the proposed Reliability interpreted as not requiring AIC in these
reliability, pointing to specific
Standards to other member entities situations.’’ 46 ITC also advocates that, if
recommendations in the 2003 Blackout
within [an RTO or ISO], the the Commission does not find that
Report. The Commission proposed to
Transmission Operator and Generator COM–001–2 as submitted includes
direct NERC to develop modifications to
Operator retain responsibility for these kinds of internal communications,
COM–001–2, or to develop a separate
compliance with the Requirements in the standard ought to be modified to do
standard, ‘‘that ensures that entities
the proposed Reliability Standards.’’ 38 so.
maintain adequate internal
Moreover, we rely on NERC’s
communications capability, at least to 39. EEI/EPSA acknowledges that the
explanation that NERC and Regional
the extent that such communications approach taken in COM–001–2 is
Entity auditors examine contractual
could involve the issuance or receipt of different than the currently-effective
arrangements ‘‘to ascertain how tasks
Operating Instructions or other COM standard with respect to internal
are delegated and to determine whether
there are gaps in performance . . . as a 40 Requirement R1 of TOP–1–1a states that ‘‘Each
communications, but maintains that this
result of the delegation. Responsibility Transmission Operator shall have the responsibility
change is consistent with results-based
will always rest with the entity and clear decision-making authority to take standards. EEI/EPSA maintains that ‘‘a
registered with NERC as the whatever actions are needed to ensure the result-based standard should not need
Transmission Operator.’’ 39 Thus, in the reliability of its area and shall exercise specific to specifically cite facility requirements
authority to alleviate operating emergencies.’’ The
PJM example, if a transmission owner obligation of a functional entity to respond to an
or the specific internal communication
with delegated operating Operating Instruction is also expected to be more obligations,’’ and maintains that COM–
responsibilities fails to use three-part explicitly addressed in other TOP and IRO 001–2 properly specifies
communication as required under standards under development or awaiting
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commission approval, including proposed 42 Id.
Reliability Standard IRO–001–4, which requires P 30.
36 ITC Comments at 5. 43 NERC Comments at 13; see also, e.g., NRECA
transmission operators, balancing authorities,
37 Id. at 6.
generator operators, and distribution providers to Comments at 1, Idaho Power Comments at 4, and
38 See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3–4; comply with their Reliability Coordinator’s Tri-State Comments at 1.
44 NERC Comments at 13; NRECA Comments at
EEI/EPSA Comments at 3–4 (Commission approved Operating Instructions except under certain
Operating Agreements ‘‘contractually bind TOs to described circumstances. 1–2.
act in conformance with TOP obligations’’). 41 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 28 (quoting 45 ITC Comments at 7.
39 NERC Comments at 10–11. COM–001–1.1, Requirement R1). 46 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22391
communications capability ‘‘at the to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, we primary communication system, as set
Functional Entity level.’’ 47 direct NERC to develop modifications to out in Requirement R11 of COM–001–2,
COM–001–2, or to develop a new is sufficient, given ‘‘the limited impact
Commission Determination
standard, to address our concerns a failure might have on Distribution
40. We agree with NERC and other regarding ensuring the adequacy of Providers and Generator Operators
commenters that Reliability Standard internal communications capability overall.’’ 53
COM–001–2 applies to communications whenever internal communications
between functional entities within a could directly affect the reliable Commission Determination
single organization. For example, COM– operation of the Bulk-Power System. 44. We are persuaded by the
001–2, Requirement R3, provides that comments of NERC and others that
‘‘each Transmission Operator shall have C. Testing Requirements for Distribution
additional testing requirements for
Interpersonal Communication Providers and Generator Operators
distribution providers and generator
capability’’ with the reliability NOPR operators are not necessary at this time.
coordinator, and each balancing NERC and other commenters assert that
42. In the NOPR, the Commission
authority, distribution provider, and the primary Interpersonal
expressed concern that Reliability
generator operator ‘‘within its Communication systems used by a
Standard COM–001–2 did not include a
Transmission Operator Area.’’ We agree distribution provider or generator
requirement that distribution providers
with NERC, ITC and other commenters operator will effectively be tested
and generator operators test or actively
that a reasonable understanding of through routine use, and that any
monitor their telecommunications
Requirement R3 is that the transmission potential failures in a given generator
systems, but were merely required to
operator must have Interpersonal operator or distribution provider’s
consult with each affected entity to
Communication capability with a external communication system will not
determine a mutually agreeable action
balancing authority, distribution have a substantial impact on the Bulk-
for restoration whenever a failure is
provider and/or generator operator Power System. In light of this
detected.49 The Commission asked for
within the same organization. Moreover, explanation, as well as our recognition
comment on ‘‘why generator operators
we agree with ITC that the COM–001– in Order No. 693 that
and distribution providers should not
2 requirements concerning Alternative telecommunication requirements for
have some form of requirement to test
Interpersonal Communication only applicable entities will vary according
or actively monitor vital primary and
apply when those communications are to their roles, we decline to require any
emergency telecommunication
performed by means other than direct, additional testing requirements for
facilities.’’ 50
face-to-face situations. distribution providers and generator
41. However, the application of COM– Comments operators at this time.
001–2 to different functional entities 43. NERC and the other commenters
within the same organization, as D. Definition of Interpersonal
on this issue maintain that there is no
discussed above, does not fully address Communication and Alternative
need for a testing requirement for
our concern set forth in the NOPR Interpersonal Communication
generator operators and distribution
regarding internal communications.48 In providers comparable to that required NOPR
particular, the NOPR explained that for reliability coordinators, balancing
Requirement R1.1 of currently-effective 45. In the NOPR, the Commission
authorities and transmission operators, sought clarification on the intended
COM–001–1.1 provides that each because generator operators and
reliability coordinator, transmission scope of the newly defined terms
distribution providers are required to Interpersonal Communication and
operator, and balancing authority ‘‘shall maintain only primary Interpersonal
provide adequate and reliable Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability, which is
telecommunication facilities for the Communication.54 The Commission
tested through routine use.51 NERC
exchange of Interconnection and noted that NERC had explained the
further explains that its approach is
operating information . . . internally.’’ introduction of these terms as a means
consistent with the Commission’s
This currently-effective Requirement of eliminating the ambiguity in the
statement in Order No. 693 that ‘‘[w]e
applies more broadly to internal terms ‘‘adequate and reliable’’ and
expect the telecommunication
communications, including internal ‘‘redundant and diversely routed’’ as
requirements for all applicable entities
communications within the same currently used in Requirements R1 and
will vary according to their roles and
functional entity. Thus, unlike the R1.4 of COM–001–1.1.
that these requirements will be
currently-effective Reliability Standard, 46. The Commission raised two
developed under the Reliability
COM–001–2 does not address the concerns about the new terms as used
Standards development process.’’ 52
adequacy of internal in proposed Reliability Standard COM–
NERC also explains that the standard
telecommunications (or other internal 001–2. First, the Commission noted that
drafting team found that the obligation
communication systems) that may have the definitions do not state a minimum
to detect and address failures in a
an adverse effect on reliability, even expectation of communication
within a single functional entity, 49 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 31 (citing to performance, such as speed and
including: (1) Communications between COM–001–2, Requirement R11).
53 NERC Comments at 14.
geographically separate control centers 50 Id, (citing System Restoration Reliability
Standards, Order No. 749, 134 FERC ¶ 61,215, at 54 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 32. As
within the same functional entity; and previously noted, NERC is proposing to define the
P 28 (2011)).
(2) communications between a control
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
51 See, e.g., NERC Comments at 14 (‘‘routine use terms, respectively, as follows:
center and field personnel. These is sufficient to demonstrate functionality of this Interpersonal Communication—Any medium that
scenarios present a gap in reliability of . . . primary capability’’); EEI/EPSA Comments at allows two or more individuals to interact, consult,
the Bulk-Power System that NERC 5–6 (‘‘a system in regular use would gain little or exchange information.
through routine testing’’); and ISO/RTO Council Alternative Interpersonal Communication—Any
should address. Accordingly, pursuant Comments at 6–7 (‘‘capability will be ‘tested’ Interpersonal Communication that is able to serve
through regular use’’). as a substitute for, and does not utilize the same
47 Id. at 4–5. 52 NERC Comments at 14–15 (quoting Order No. infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal
48 See NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at PP 28–31. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 487). Communication used for day-to-day operation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/7.svg)
![22392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
quality.55 Second, the Commission COM–001–2 is not intended to, and interpreted to extend the Standard
asked for clarification as to whether does not, cover data exchanges or beyond verbal and written
Interpersonal Communication includes transfers. NERC (through its initial and communications and Operating
mediums used directly to exchange or supplemental comments) and ISO/RTO Instructions to include the transmission
transfer data, which communications Council maintain that COM–001–2 need of electronic data between control
appear to be covered under the not include requirements regarding data systems that are monitored/used by
currently-approved version of COM– transfer capability because such system operators.’’ 66 ITC warns that
001.56 The Commission, thus, asked for capability is covered under other ‘‘[i]f the Commission does indeed
further explanation ‘‘regarding existing or proposed standards. intend the scope of the Standards to
acceptable (and unacceptable) 49. With respect to existing standards, extend to such electronic data
performance of communication for both NERC states that the standard drafting transmission, the requirement for
Interpersonal and Alternative team determined that IRO–010–1a and Alternative Interpersonal
Interpersonal Communications.’’ 57 IRO–014–1 ‘‘provided the necessary Communication may not be achievable’’
Comments mandatory Requirements to ensure because ‘‘[i]t may simply not be possible
proper data exchange is occurring.’’ 62 to maintain a second pathway for the
47. With respect to minimum ISO/RTO Council provides several transmission of such data, whether by
performance standards or specifications additional examples of existing dint of data format, system
for the required communications Reliability Standards that address data compatibility, or the feasibility of
mediums, none of the commenters exchange and transfer capability, installing a redundant system.’’ 67 ITC
believe such specifications are including BAL–004–2b, R14; IRO–002– accordingly recommends that if an
necessary or advisable. NERC maintains 2, R1; and TOP–006–2, R1.63 alternative pathway for data
that additional specifications are not 50. With respect to standards under transmission is deemed necessary, then
necessary because the standard as development, NERC asserts that four the Commission should retain the
written requires applicable entities to proposed IRO and TOP standards, now language from COM–001–1 which
have the working capability needed to approved by the Board, ‘‘include requires ‘‘redundant and diversely
maintain reliability.58 EEI/EPSA agrees specific coverage related to data routed systems.’’ 68
that performance specifications are not exchange,’’ and ‘‘collectively require
necessary, and questions whether it is data exchange capability’’ for reliability Commission Determination
even possible to set such standards coordinators, transmission operators, 53. First, we are satisfied that
given the diversity of systems used.59 balancing authorities, generator technical specifications regarding
ISO/RTO Council asserts that it would operators, and distribution providers.64 minimum levels of performance for the
be inadvisable to include technical NERC describes the specific mediums used to satisfy the
specifications on the communication requirements in proposed Reliability requirements of COM–001–2 are not
mediums required, as it could result in Standards TOP–001–3, IRO–010–2, necessary at this time. In doing so, we
the use of the least expensive medium TOP–003–3, and IRO–002–4 that will note NERC’s explanation that the
that could achieve compliance.60 Idaho address data exchange capabilities and/ requirements in COM–001–2 are
Power suggests that the kinds of or data exchange specifications for ‘‘absolute’’ and that entities must ‘‘have
measurable characteristics that might be applicable functional entities. the capability in place to ‘establish
appropriate for use to establish 51. EEI/EPSA and Idaho Power also Interpersonal Communication
minimum performance levels for data maintain that the term Interpersonal capabilities necessary to maintain
exchanges are not available here, Communication does not cover data reliability.’ ’’ 69 Moreover, we are
because the proposed COM standards exchange, with EEI/EPSA asserting that persuaded by the commenters that
do not include data exchange. Tri-State the phrase requires a system ‘‘that setting performance criteria for the
G&T states that the most common enables effective communications email and telephonic communications
expected mediums for communication between two or more individuals.’’ 65 at issue here is both impractical and
under the standard will likely be email Moreover, EEI/EPSA understands the unnecessary.
and telephone, and that there is no need term Alternative Interpersonal 54. Second, the NOPR raised concerns
to include minimum expectations of Communication to require certain pertaining to whether COM–001–2
speed or performance because ‘‘all addresses ‘‘facilities that directly
entities to have backup communications
entities are focused on reliability and exchange or transfer data.’’ 70 In
that do not utilize the same
would always use the fastest and most response, NERC states that data
infrastructure.
reliable means of communication.’’ 61 52. ITC asserts that the definitions of exchange capability is being addressed
48. With respect to the transfer of data
Interpersonal Communication and in proposed IRO and TOP standards.71
as opposed to communications between
Alternative Interpersonal Accordingly, we do not make any
persons, all of the commenters to
Communication ‘‘could ostensibly be determinations regarding data exchange
directly address the issue acknowledge
capability in the immediate rulemaking.
that proposed Reliability Standard 62 NERC Comments at 16. See also ISO/RTO
Rather, based on NERC’s explanation,
Council Comments at 5–6 (noting that the standard we will address any issues regarding
55 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 33. drafting team explained that data communication is
56 Id. As the Commission noted, COM–001–1.1, covered under Requirement R3 of IRO–010–1).
66 ITC Comments at 8.
Requirement R1 addresses ‘‘telecommunications 63 ISO/RTO Council Comments at 6, n.10.
facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and 64 NERC Supp. Comments at 3. NERC identified
67 Id.
operating information.’’ 68 Id.at 9.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
these same four standards in its Initial Comments,
57 Id. 69 NERC
but provides a more detailed discussion of the Comments at 15–16.
58 NERC Comments at 4, 15–16.
proposed standards and their status in its 70 See NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 33.
59 EEI/EPSA Comments at 6–7.
Supplemental Comments. 71 See NERC Supplemental Filing at 2–3. On
60 ISO/RTO Council at 5. ISO/RTO Council also 65 EEI/EPSA at 7. Similarly, Idaho Power states March 18, 2015, NERC submitted a petition for
notes that its members already have requirements that the term was intended to include voice and approval of proposed Transmission Operations and
in place with their stakeholders on necessary electronic messaging between people, and exclude Interconnection Reliability Operations and
technical requirements for voice and data exchange. data exchanges, such as SCADA and metering data. Coordination Reliability Standards, Docket No.
61 Tri-State G&T Comments at 2. Idaho Power Comments at 4–5. RM15–15–000, pending before the Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22393
data exchange capability in the pending Standard COM–001–2 establishes when issuing or receiving an Operating
rulemaking pertaining to NERC’s Interpersonal Communication capability Instruction during an Emergency.
proposed TOP and IRO Reliability necessary to maintain reliability, while Many of the record retention or
Standards. Reliability Standard COM–002–4 information collection requirements in
III. Information Collection Statement improves communications related to COM–001–2 and COM–002–4 are
Operating Instructions, requiring issuers translated in some form from the
55. The collection of information of Operating Instructions to adopt
contained in this Final Rule is subject currently-effective Reliability Standards
predefined communications protocols (COM–001–1 and COM–002–2). For
to review by the Office of Management and requiring both issuers and
and Budget (OMB) under section these requirements, the Commission
recipients of Operating Instructions to estimates a zero net change in burden.
3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act use three-part communications.
of 1995.72 OMB’s regulations require Accordingly, our estimate below shows
approval of certain information Public Reporting Burden: Reliability the increase in record-retention or
collection requirements imposed by Standards COM–001–2 and COM–002– information collection burden, based on
agency rules.73 Upon approval of a 4 do not require responsible entities to the new requirements to:
collection(s) of information, OMB will file information with the Commission. (1) Develop communications protocols (a
assign an OMB control number and an However, the Reliability Standards one-time burden under COM–002–4,
expiration date. Respondents subject to require applicable entities to develop Requirement R1),
the filing requirements of a rule will not and maintain certain information, (2) maintain evidence of required training,
be penalized for failing to respond to subject to audit. In particular, COM– assessments, and use of three-part
these collections of information unless 001–2 requires that transmission communications, as applicable (an on-going
operators, balancing authorities, burden under COM–002–4 Requirements R2,
the collections of information display a R3, R4, R5 and R6); and
valid OMB control number. reliability coordinators, distribution
providers, and generator operators must (3) maintain evidence to demonstrate
56. The Commission solicited Interpersonal Communication capability (a
comments on the need for this maintain documentation of
new, on-going burden for distribution
information, whether the information Interpersonal Communication capability providers and generator operators under
will have practical utility, the accuracy and designation of Alternate COM–001–2 Requirements R7 and R8).
of the burden estimates, ways to Interpersonal Communication, as well
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity as evidence of testing of the Alternate The Commission’s estimate of the
of the information to be collected or Interpersonal Communication facilities. number of respondents is based on the
retained, and any suggested methods for COM–002–4 requires balancing NERC compliance registry as of August
minimizing respondents’ burden, authorities, distribution providers, 15, 2014. According to the NERC
including the use of automated reliability coordinators, transmission compliance registry, NERC has
information techniques. Specifically, operators, and generator operators to registered 179 transmission operators,
the Commission asked that any revised develop and maintain documented 107 balancing authorities, 15 reliability
burden or cost estimates submitted by communication protocols, and to be coordinators, 475 distribution providers,
commenters be supported by sufficient able to provide evidence of training on and 853 generator operators within the
detail to understand how the estimates the protocols and of their annual United States. However, under NERC’s
were generated. assessment of the protocols. compliance registration program,
57. The Final Rule approves Additionally, all applicable entities entities may be registered for multiple
Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and (balancing authorities, reliability functions, so these numbers incorporate
COM–002–4, as well as NERC’s coordinators, transmission operators, some double counting, which has been
proposed retirement of currently- generator operators, and distribution accounted for in the table below. The
effective Reliability Standards COM– providers) must be able to provide Commission estimates the annual
001–1.1 and COM–002–2. Reliability evidence of three-part communication reporting burden and cost as follows:
Annual Avg. burden & Total annual burden
Number and type of number of Total number
Information collection requirement cost per hours & total annual
respondents responses per of responses response 74 cost 75
respondent
(1) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5)
(One-time) Development of Communica- 212 ............................ 1 212 8 hrs. & $522.72 1,696 hours &
tion Protocols [COM–002–4 R1]. (BA, RC & TOP) ........ $110,816.64
(On-going) Maintain evidence of Inter- 1,217 ......................... 1 1,217 4 hrs. & $133.68 4,868 hours &
personal Communication capability (DP & GOP) .............. $162,688.56
[COM–001–2 R7 and R8].76
(On-going) Maintain evidence of training 212 ............................ 1 212 8 hrs. & $267.36 1,696 hours &
and assessments [COM–002–4 R2, (BA, RC & TOP) ........ $56,680.32
R4, R5 and R6].
(On-going) Maintain evidence of training 1,217 ......................... 1 1,217 8 hrs. & $267.36 9,736 hours & $
[COM–002–4 R3, and R6]. (DP & GOP) .............. 325,377.12
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012). NOPR, and are available at: http://bls.gov/oes/ the NOPR were higher than the corrected and
73 5 CFR 1320.11 (2013). current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000. The first row updated estimate reflected in this Final Rule.
74 The estimated hourly costs (salary plus of the table (one-time burden) is done by an 76 No change is expected in the record-keeping
benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics engineer, and the latter three rows (ongoing burden) burden under COM–001–2 for reliability
(BLS) information, as of March 19, 2015, for an are done by a file clerk. coordinators, balancing authorities, and
electrical engineer ($65.34/hour for review and 75 This dollar burden figure in row 3 of this chart
transmission operators as compared to the
documentation) and for an Information and Record was incorrectly stated in the NOPR, which led to currently-effective COM–001 standard.
Clerk ($33.42/hour for record retention). These an incorrect estimate of the total dollar burden for
figures have been updated since issuance of the the industry in row 5. Both estimates as stated in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/9.svg)
![22394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Annual Avg. burden & Total annual burden
Number and type of number of Total number
Information collection requirement cost per hours & total annual
respondents responses per of responses response 74 cost 75
respondent
(1) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5)
Total ................................................... .................................... ........................ 2,858 ........................... 17,996 hours &
$655,562.64
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards estimates should be sent to the of predefined communication protocols,
for the Bulk-Power System: COM Commission in these dockets and may annual assessment of those protocols
Reliability Standards. also be sent to the Office of Management and operating personnel’s adherence
Action: Proposed FERC–725V. and Budget, Office of Information and thereto, training on the protocols, and
OMB Control No: 1902–0277. Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk use of three-part communications. The
Respondents: Businesses or other for- Officer for the Federal Energy Commission estimates that each small
profit institutions; not-for-profit Regulatory Commission]. For security balancing authority, reliability
institutions. reasons, comments should be sent by coordinator, and transmission operator
Frequency of Responses: One-time email to OMB at the following email subject to Reliability Standard COM–
and ongoing. address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 002–4 will incur one-time compliance
Necessity of the Information: The Please reference FERC–725V and the costs of about $523 (i.e. development of
approval of Reliability Standards COM– docket numbers of this Notice of communication protocols), plus on-
001–2 and COM–002–4 implements the Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. going annual costs of about $790 (i.e.
Congressional mandate of the Energy RM14–13–000) in your submission. performing training and maintaining
Policy Act of 2005 to develop evidence of training and assessments).81
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
mandatory and enforceable Reliability The Commission estimates that each of
Certification
Standards to better ensure the reliability the small distribution provider and
of the nation’s Bulk-Power System. 60. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of generator operator entities potentially
Specifically, the purpose of the 1980 (RFA) 77 generally requires a subject to Reliability Standards COM–
Reliability Standards is to establish description and analysis of proposed 001–2 and COM–002–4 will incur on-
Interpersonal Communication capability rules that will have significant going annual costs of about $887 (i.e.
necessary to maintain reliability, and to economic impact on a substantial performing training and maintaining
improve communications for the number of small entities. Reliability evidence of interpersonal
issuance of Operating Instructions with Standard COM–001–2 is expected to communication capability and of
predefined communications protocols. impose burdens for the first time on training).82 The Commission does not
The proposed Reliability Standards 1,217 entities (i.e., distribution consider the estimated costs per small
require entities to maintain records providers and generator operators).78 entity to have a significant economic
subject to review by the Commission Reliability Standard COM–002–4 may impact on a substantial number of small
and NERC to ensure compliance with apply to as many as 1,279 entities.79 entities. Accordingly, the Commission
the Reliability Standards. Comparison of the applicable entities certifies that this Final Rule will not
Internal Review: The Commission has with FERC’s small business data have a significant economic impact on
reviewed the requirements pertaining to indicates that approximately 934 of the a substantial number of small entities.
the Reliability Standards for the Bulk- 1,279 entities are small entities.80
61. Reliability Standard COM–002–4 V. Environmental Analysis
Power System and determined that the
requirements are necessary to meet the will serve to enhance reliability by, 62. The Commission is required to
statutory provisions of the Energy Policy among other things, requiring adoption prepare an Environmental Assessment
Act of 2005. These requirements or an Environmental Impact Statement
conform to the Commission’s plan for
77 5U.S.C. 601–612. for any action that may have a
efficient information collection,
78 The number of small distribution providers significant adverse effect on the human
required to comply with the COM standards may environment.83 The Commission has
communication and management within decrease significantly. In March 2015, the
the energy industry. The Commission Commission approved revisions to the NERC Rules
categorically excluded certain actions
has assured itself, by means of internal of Procedure to implement NERC’s ‘‘risk based from this requirement as not having a
review, that there is specific, objective registration’’ program, which raised the registry significant effect on the human
threshold for distribution providers from a 25 MW environment. Included in the exclusion
support for the burden estimates to 75 MW peak load. North American Electric
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
associated with the information Reliability Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2015).
or procedural or that do not
requirements. 79 The applicable entities are balancing
authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission substantially change the effect of the
58. Interested persons may obtain
operators, generator operators, and distribution regulations being amended.84 The
information on the reporting providers. After accounting for entities registered actions approved herein fall within this
requirements by contacting the for more than one function, the total count is 1,279
following: Federal Energy Regulatory entities.
81 The ongoing annual costs for both paperwork
80 The Small Business Administration sets the
Commission, 888 First Street NE., and training are based on (8 hours * $33.42) + (8
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
threshold for what constitutes a small business.
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Public utilities may fall under one of several * $65.34) = $790.16 or approximately $790.00.
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, different categories, each with a size threshold
82 The ongoing annual cost is based on (12 *
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: based on the company’s number of employees, $33.42) + (8 * $60.70) = $886.64 or approximately
including affiliates, the parent company, and $887.00.
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 83 Regulations Implementing the National
subsidiaries. The possible categories for the
59. Comments concerning the applicable entities have a size threshold ranging Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
information collections approved in this from 250 employees to 1,000 employees. We are FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).
Final Rule and the associated burden using the 1000 employee threshold for this analysis. 84 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/10.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22395
categorical exclusion in the Issued: April 16, 2015. Commission approves Reliability
Commission’s regulations. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Standard BAL–001–2 (Real Power
Deputy Secretary. Balancing Control Performance)
VI. Document Availability
[FR Doc. 2015–09225 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] submitted by the North American
63. In addition to publishing the full BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
text of this document in the Federal the Commission-certified Electric
Register, the Commission provides all Reliability Organization (ERO).
interested persons an opportunity to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Reliability Standard BAL–001–2 applies
view and/or print the contents of this to balancing authorities and Regulation
document via the Internet through the Federal Energy Regulatory Reserve Sharing Groups,2 and is
Commission’s Home Page (http:// Commission intended to ensure that Interconnection
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s frequency is maintained within
Public Reference Room during normal 18 CFR Part 40 predefined frequency limits. The
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. [Docket No. RM14–10–000; Order No. 810] Commission also finds that Reliability
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Standard BAL–001–2 addresses the
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. Real Power Balancing Control Commission’s directive set forth in
64. From the Commission’s Home Performance Reliability Standard Order No. 693 pertaining to BAL–002–
Page on the Internet, this information is 0.3 The Commission approves the
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory retirement of currently-effective
available on eLibrary. The full text of
Commission, Energy. Reliability Standard BAL–001–1
this document is available on eLibrary
ACTION: Final rule. immediately prior to the effective date
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading. of Reliability Standard BAL–001–2.
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 2. Further, the Commission approves
To access this document in eLibrary, Regulatory Commission (Commission)
type the docket number excluding the NERC’s four proposed definitions,
approves Reliability Standard BAL– associated violation risk factors and
last three digits of this document in the 001–2 (Real Power Balancing Control
docket number field. violation severity levels,
Performance) and four new definitions implementation plan, and effective date.
65. User assistance is available for submitted by the North American The Commission also directs NERC to
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), submit an informational filing 90 days
during normal business hours from the the Commission-certified Electric after the end of the two-year period
Commission’s Online Support at 202– Reliability Organization. Reliability following implementation that includes
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) Standard BAL–001–2 is designed to an analysis of data on whether
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, ensure that applicable entities maintain experience with the Balancing
or the Public Reference Room at (202) system frequency within narrow bounds Authority ACE Limit in the first two
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email around a scheduled value, and improves years after approval has seen ACE
the Public Reference Room at reliability by adding a frequency swings and inadvertent interchange 4
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. component to the measurement of a and unscheduled power flows 5 that
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Balancing Authority’s Area Control could cause system operating limit
Notification Error. In addition, the Commission (SOL) and interconnection reliability
directs NERC to submit an informational operating limit (IROL) exceedances, and
66. This Final Rule is effective June filing pertaining to the potential impact further directs NERC to revise one
22, 2015. of the Reliability Standard, and also definition.
67. The Commission has determined, directs NERC to revise one definition.
with the concurrence of the DATES: This rule is effective June 22, I. Background
Administrator of the Office of 2015. 3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Information and Regulatory Affairs of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commission-certified ERO to develop
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ Enakpodia Agbedia (Technical mandatory and enforceable Reliability
as defined in section 351 of the Small Information), Office of Electric Standards that are subject to
Business Regulatory Enforcement Reliability, Division of Reliability Commission review and approval.
Fairness Act of 1996.85 The Commission Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory Specifically, the Commission may
will submit the Final Rule to both Commission, 888 First Street NE., approve, by rule or order, a proposed
houses of Congress and to the General Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
Accountability Office. (202) 502–6750, Enakpodia.Agbedia@ 2 NERC defines Regulation Reserve Sharing Group
68. In addition to publishing the full as ‘‘[a]group whose members consist of two or more
ferc.gov. Balancing Authorities that collectively maintain,
text of this document in the Federal Mark Bennett (Legal Information), allocate, and supply the Regulating Reserve
Register, the Commission provides all Office of the General Counsel, Federal required for all member Balancing Authorities to
interested persons an opportunity to Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 use in meeting applicable regulating standards.’’
view and/or print the contents of this NERC Petition at 7.
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 3 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-
document via the Internet through the Telephone: (202) 502–8524, Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
Commission’s Home Page (http:// Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov. ¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Public Reference Room during normal 4 Inadvertent interchange is ‘‘[t]he difference
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Order No. 810 between the Balancing Authority’s Net Actual
Interchange and Net Scheduled Interchange. (IA–
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Final Rule IS).’’ NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. Standards (NERC Glossary) at 42.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the 5 Unscheduled power flows generally refers to
By direction of the Commission. Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the power flows that result from the law of physics that
causes power from a given source to flow over all
85 See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1 16 U.S.C. 824(o). possible paths to its destination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_22462/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-16 08:27:21
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 08:27:21
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule will become effective June 22, 2015. | |
| Contact | Vincent Le (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6204, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 22385 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR