System Restoration Reliability Standards, 16277-16285 [2011-6739]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
developed by NERC and approved by
the Commission.
107. TANC requests clarification that
the Commission has not yet finalized its
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and
will not do so until NERC has submitted
a proposed exemption process.
108. Public Power Council, NYPSC
and Snohomish argue that
implementing the 100-kV threshold will
be enormously costly. Public Power
Council, for its part, argues that the
Commission’s rejection of evidence of
such increased compliance costs was
arbitrary and capricious since, inter alia,
Public Power Council did provide
specific assertions as to how the Final
Rule will have a significant economic
impact on small entities. The NYPSC
requests rehearing on whether the
Commission’s decision to direct NERC
to revise the bulk electric system
definition to include facilities operated
at 100 kV and above where the
Commission failed to determine
sufficient benefits in relation to the
costs, resulting in the imposition of
unnecessary costs without reliability
benefits, was arbitrary, capricious, and
an abuse of discretion. Snohomish states
that it and many other entities operating
in the Western Interconnection
provided evidence demonstrating that
imposition of the 100-kV threshold in
the Western Interconnection will result
of enormous compliance costs with no
benefit to reliability since the 115-kV
systems operated by these entities
generally are used only for local
distribution and their operation
therefore has little or no effect on the
interconnected bulk system.
Commission Determination
109. The Commission does not agree
with commenters that its Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis was deficient,
and we continue to believe that our
suggested approach in Order No. 743
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.103 With respect to comments
that we did not adequately consider the
costs of implementing a 100 kV
threshold, we note that the current bulk
electric system definition contains a
general 100 kV threshold. Thus, the
burden of our suggested proposal to
eliminate the regional discretion in the
current definition and maintain a brightline 100 kV threshold should be
minimal in all regions except NPCC.
Even within the U.S. portion of the
NPCC region, the Commission estimated
in the Final Rule that only four of the
33 transmission owners, transmission
operators and transmission service
103 Order
No. 743, 133 FERC ¶ 61,150 at P 169.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
providers may fall within the definition
of small entities. We also believe that
the exemption process will further
ensure that the Final Rule minimally
affects small entities. Finally, we have
clarified on rehearing that NERC may
develop criteria to identify local
distribution facilities and certain
categories of radial facilities that qualify
for exclusion from the definition of the
bulk electric system and therefore do
not need to apply for exemption. For
these reasons the Commission rejects
the comments objecting to the
Commission’s determinations regarding
the cost of implementing a 100 kV
threshold.
110. However, the Commission will
grant APPA’s and NRECA’s request for
clarification in part. The Commission
clarifies that it will perform a new
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to
determine whether the revised bulk
electric system definition will have a
significant economic impact on small
entities when NERC submits its
proposed definition, criteria for
exclusion and the exemption process.104
We believe that the revisions NERC will
propose will be sufficiently different
from the initial NOPR proposal to
warrant additional review to ensure that
small entities are not unduly burdened.
16277
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–6779 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM10–16–000; Order No. 749]
System Restoration Reliability
Standards
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Commission
approves three Emergency Operations
and Preparedness (EOP) Reliability
Standards, EOP–001–1 (Emergency
Operations Planning), EOP–005–2
(System Restoration from Blackstart
Resources), and EOP–006–2 (System
Restoration Coordination) as well as the
III. Document Availability
111. In addition to publishing the full definition of the term ‘‘Blackstart
Resource’’ submitted to the Commission
text of this document in the Federal
for approval by the North American
Register, the Commission provides all
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
interested persons an opportunity to
the Electric Reliability Organization
view and/or print the contents of this
certified by the Commission. The
document via the Internet through
FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) approved Reliability Standards require
transmission operators, generation
and in FERC’s Public Reference Room
during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. operators, and certain transmission
owners and distribution providers to
to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First
ensure that plans, facilities and
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
personnel are prepared to enable system
20426.
restoration from Blackstart Resources
112. From FERC’s Home Page on the
Internet, this information is available on and require reliability coordinators to
establish plans and prepare personnel to
eLibrary. The full text of this document
enable effective coordination of the
is available on eLibrary in PDF and
system restoration process. The
Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access Commission also approves the NERC’s
proposal to retire four existing EOP
this document in eLibrary, type the
Reliability Standards and a definition
docket number excluding the last three
that are replaced by the Standards and
digits of this document in the docket
definition approved in this Final Rule.
number field.
113. User assistance is available for
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will
eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during become effective May 23, 2011.
normal business hours from FERC
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll
Terence Burke (Legal Information),
free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–6498.
104 This analysis will determine if an Initial
David O’Connor (Technical
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required or if the
Information), Office of Electric
Commission can certify that the revised definition
Reliability, Division of Reliability
will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small companies.
Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
16278
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6695.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.
Final Rule
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Issued March 17, 2011.
1. Under section 215 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission
approves three Emergency Operations
and Preparedness (EOP) Reliability
Standards, EOP–001–1 (Emergency
Operations Planning), EOP–005–2
(System Restoration from Blackstart
Resources), and EOP–006–2 (System
Restoration Coordination) as well as the
definition of the term ‘‘Blackstart
Resource’’ submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) certified by the Commission. The
approved Reliability Standards require
transmission operators, generation
operators, and certain transmission
owners and distribution providers to
ensure that plans, facilities, and
personnel are prepared to enable system
restoration from Blackstart Resources
and require reliability coordinators to
establish plans and prepare personnel to
enable effective coordination of the
system restoration process. The
Commission also approves NERC’s
proposal to retire four existing EOP
Reliability Standards and the defined
term ‘‘Blackstart Capability Plan’’
concurrent with the effectiveness of the
Standards and the term Blackstart
Resource approved in this Final Rule. In
those jurisdictions where regulatory
approval is required, Reliability
Standard EOP–001–1 will not become
effective until the first day of the first
calendar quarter three months after
regulatory approval is obtained, and
EOP–005–2 and EOP–006–2 approved
in this Final Rule will not become
effective until 24 months after the first
day of the first quarter after applicable
regulatory approval.
2. ‘‘Blackstart’’ capability refers to the
ability of a generating unit or station to
start operating and delivering electric
power without assistance from the
electric system. Blackstart units are
essential to restart generation and
restore power to the grid in the event of
an outage. As discussed below, NERC
proposes to define ‘‘Blackstart Resource’’
as ‘‘a generating unit(s) and its
associated set of equipment which has
the ability to be started without support
from the System or is designed to
1 16
U.S.C. 824o.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
remain energized without connection to
the remainder of the System, with the
ability to energize a bus. * * *’’
3. In Order No. 693, the Commission
determined that it would not take action
on certain proposed Reliability
Standards that required supplemental
information from a Regional Entity.
Such Reliability Standards refer to
regional criteria or procedures that had
not been submitted to the Commission
for approval and, as such, are referred
to as ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ standards.2
Pending Reliability Standard EOP–007–
0 is one such fill-in-the-blank standard.
The Reliability Standards approved
herein provide a standardized, national
approach to address the Commission’s
concerns regarding pending EOP–007–0,
as set forth in Order No. 693. Thus, in
addition to the retirement of certain
currently effective EOP Reliability
Standards, we also approve the
withdrawal of pending Reliability
Standard EOP–007–0.
I. Background
4. On March 16, 2007, the
Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability
Standards filed by NERC,3 including the
Reliability Standards: EOP–001–0, EOP–
005–1, EOP–006–1, and EOP–009–0.4
The Commission neither approved nor
remanded EOP–007–0 because it
applied only to regional reliability
organizations, but Order No. 693 did
provide guidance for the ERO’s further
consideration of the Reliability
Standard.5 In addition, under section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission
directed NERC to develop modifications
to the EOP Reliability Standards to
address certain issues identified by the
Commission. At issue in the immediate
proceeding are two new EOP standards,
EOP–005–2 and EOP–006–2 that would
replace the currently effective
Reliability Standards EOP–005–1, EOP–
006–1, and EOP–009–0, pending
Standard EOP–007–0, and necessitate a
conforming change in EOP–001–0.
A. Currently Effective EOP Reliability
Standards
Reliability Standard EOP–005–1
5. Currently effective Reliability
Standard EOP–005–1 requires
transmission operators, balancing
authorities, and reliability coordinators
to have a restoration plan, test the plan,
2 Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr.
4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, at P 297,
order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶
61,053 (2007).
3 Id. P 304–1899.
4 Id. P 542–676.
5 Id. P 644.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
train operating personnel in the
restoration plan, and have the ability to
restore the Interconnection using the
plans following a blackout. In Order No.
693, the Commission directed the ERO
to develop, through the Reliability
Standard development process, a
modification to EOP–005–1 that
identifies time frames for training and
review of restoration plan requirements
to simulate contingencies and prepare
operators for anticipated and unforeseen
events.6 The Commission also directed
the ERO to consider various
commenters’ suggestions in future
revisions of the Reliability Standard.7
Reliability Standard EOP–006–1
6. In Order No. 693, the Commission
also approved Reliability Standard
EOP–006–1 addressing reliability
coordination and system restoration.
The Reliability Standard sets
requirements for reliability coordinators
during system restoration and requires
that they have a coordinating role to
ensure reliability is maintained during
system restoration. Under section 215 of
the FPA, the Commission directed the
ERO to develop a modification to EOP–
006–1 to ensure that the reliability
coordinator is involved in the
development and approval of system
restoration plans.8
Pending Reliability Standard
EOP–007–0
7. Pending Reliability Standard EOP–
007–0 deals with establishing,
maintaining and documenting regional
blackstart capability plans. In Order No.
693, the Commission did not act on
EOP–007–0 pending NERC’s providing
additional information.9 The
Commission, however, directed the ERO
to consider various commenters’
suggestions relating to assigning
compliance obligations directly to the
entities that provide the pertinent data
rather than to the Regional Entity,
placing responsibility for the regional
blackstart plan with the reliability
coordinator, recognizing that nuclear
units have no blackstart capability,
revising the definition of a blackstart
unit, and committing arrangements for
coordinating blackstart capability to
contracts.10
Reliability Standard EOP–009–0
8. Currently effective Reliability
Standard EOP–009–0 deals with
implementing and documenting testing
6 Id.
P 630.
P 628.
8 Id. P 638.
9 Id. P 297, 644.
10 Id. P 642–643, 647.
7 Id.
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
of blackstart generating units. In Order
No. 693, the Commission directed the
ERO to consider suggestions for
improvements raised during the
comment period. One commenter stated
the Reliability Standard should provide
details on what constitutes a blackstart
test and another stated that NERC
should consolidate the Reliability
Standard with EOP–007–0.11
B. NERC Petition
9. In a December 31, 2009 filing
(NERC Petition),12 NERC requests
Commission approval of its proposed
definition of the term ‘‘Blackstart
Resource’’ and proposed Reliability
Standards EOP–001–1 (Emergency
Operating Planning),13 EOP–005–2
(System Restoration from Blackstart
Resources), and EOP–006–2 (System
Restoration Coordination). NERC also
seeks to concurrently retire four
currently effective Reliability Standards:
EOP–001–0, EOP–005–1, EOP–006–1,
and EOP–009–0 as well as the definition
of ‘‘Blackstart Capability Plan’’ and
withdraw pending Reliability Standard
EOP–007–0.
10. NERC states that the proposed
Reliability Standards ‘‘represent
significant revision and improvement
from the current set of enforceable
standards’’ and address the
Commission’s directives in Order No.
693 related to the EOP standards.14
NERC explains that, among other
enhancements, ‘‘[t]he proposed revisions
now clearly delineate the
responsibilities of the Reliability
Coordinator and Transmission Operator
in the restoration process and
restoration planning.’’ 15 NERC describes
the proposed Reliability Standards as
providing ‘‘specific requirements for
11 Id.
P 674, 676.
American Electric Reliability Corp., Dec.
31, 2009 Petition for Approval of Three Emergency
Preparedness and Operations Reliability Standards
and One New Glossary Term and for Retirement of
Five Existing Reliability Standards and One
Glossary Term. The three Reliability standards are
included as Exhibit A to NERC’s Petition. In
addition, under 18 CFR 40.3 of the Commission’s
regulations, all Commission-approved Reliability
Standards are available on NERC’s Web site at
https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2√20. See 18
CFR 40.3.
13 Concurrent with its filing in this Docket, NERC
filed a petition in Docket No. RM10–15–000 seeking
approval of certain Interconnection Reliability
Operations and Coordination (IRO) Reliability
Standards. As part of its IRO filing, NERC proposed
to retire Requirement R2 of EOP–001–0. Each
petition proposes unique changes to EOP–001–0
reflecting the distinct issues addressed by the
respective Reliability Standards drafting teams. In
this Final Rule, the Commission is addressing
Version 2 of EOP–001 contained in Exhibit B of the
NERC Petition which reflects both the IRO and the
EOP proposed changes.
14 NERC Petition at 4.
15 Id. at 5.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
12 North
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
what must be in a restoration plan, how
and when it needs to be updated and
approved, what needs to be provided to
operators and what training is necessary
for personnel involved in restoration
processes.’’ 16
Proposed Definition of Blackstart
Resource
11. NERC requests approval of the
term ‘‘Blackstart Resource’’ and the
concurrent retirement of the term
‘‘Blackstart Capability Plan.’’ The
proposed definition of ‘‘Blackstart
Resource’’ is:
A generating unit(s) and its associated set
of equipment which has the ability to be
started without support from the System or
is designed to remain energized without
connection to the remainder of the System,
with the ability to energize a bus, meeting the
Transmission Operator’s restoration plan
needs for real and reactive power capability,
frequency and voltage control, and that has
been included in the Transmission
Operator’s restoration plan.
The term ‘‘Blackstart Capacity Plan’’ is
currently used solely in EOP–007–0 and
EOP–009–0, both of which are replaced
with proposed Reliability Standards
EOP–005–2 and EOP–006–2.
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
001–1
12. Proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–001–1 contains seven
requirements for the stated purpose of
requiring each transmission operator
and balancing authority to develop,
maintain, and implement a set of plans
to mitigate operating emergencies and to
coordinate these plans with other
transmission operators, balancing
authorities, and the reliability
coordinator.17 It modifies EOP–001–0
by deleting Requirement R3.4, which
requires transmission operators and
balancing authorities to develop,
maintain and implement restoration
plans, because proposed Reliability
Standards EOP–005–2 and EOP–006–2
incorporate and expand upon this
Requirement.
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
005–2
13. Proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–005–2 contains eighteen
requirements for the stated purpose of
ensuring that plans, facilities, and
personnel are prepared to enable system
restoration from Blackstart Resources,
and to ensure reliability is maintained
during restoration and priority is placed
16 Id.
17 Reliability Standard EOP–001–1, Section A.3.
(Purpose).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16279
on restoring the Interconnection.18 The
proposed Reliability Standard applies to
transmission operators, generation
operators, and transmission owners and
distribution providers identified in the
transmission operator’s restoration plan.
Requirement R1 requires each
transmission operator to have a
reliability coordinator-approved
restoration plan utilizing Blackstart
Resources and details the scope and
elements of such a plan. Requirement
R2 instructs each transmission operator
to provide entities that have a role in the
restoration plan with a description of
their roles and tasks. Requirements R3
through R6 address annual plan
reviews, updating practices, location of
plans and plan verification. Following a
disturbance, Requirements R7 and R8
provide guidance on following the plan
or making needed adjustments and
coordinating when re-synchronizing
two systems together. Requirement R9
describes testing information the
transmission operator must have to
verify the Blackstart Resources meet
required expectations. Requirements
R10 through R12 cover system
restoration training requirements for
system operators and field switching
personnel. Blackstart Resource
agreements between the transmission
operator and generator operator, or
mutually agreed upon procedures or
protocols are addressed in Requirement
R13. Duties of a generator owner with a
Blackstart Resource are provided in
Requirements R14 through R18, which
address operating procedures, change
notification, testing for each Blackstart
Resource and training of operating
personnel on Blackstart Resources.
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
005–2 is intended to supersede all of
currently effective Reliability Standard
EOP–005–1.
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
006–2
14. Proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–006–2 contains ten requirements
with the stated purpose of ensuring that
the reliability coordinator establishes
plans and prepares personnel to enable
effective coordination of the system
restoration process, to maintain
reliability during restoration, and to
place priority on restoring the
Interconnection.19 Requirement R1
requires reliability coordinators to have
restoration plans that utilize Blackstart
Resources and specifies the scope and
elements of such plans. Requirement R2
18 Reliability Standard EOP–005–2, Section A.4.
(Purpose).
19 Reliability Standard EOP–006–2, Section A.3.
(Purpose).
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
16280
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
covers distribution of the reliability
coordinator’s restoration plan.
Requirements R3 through R5 provide for
review of the reliability coordinator’s
restoration plan and the plans of each
neighboring reliability coordinator and
each transmission operator located in
the reliability coordinator’s area. Any
conflicts between neighboring reliability
coordinators’ plans are to be resolved
within thirty days, and transmission
operators’ plans shall be approved or
disapproved, with stated reasons,
within thirty days of receipt by the
reliability coordinator. Requirement R6
requires that the reliability coordinator
must maintain copies of restoration
plans in its primary and backup control
rooms. Requirements R7 and R8
describe the roles of reliability
coordinators to coordinate restoration
efforts and authorize re-synchronization
of ‘‘island’’ areas. Requirements R9 and
R10 address training and participation
in annual drills, exercises and
simulations. Proposed Reliability
Standard EOP–006–2 is intended to
supersede all of currently effective
Reliability Standard EOP–006–1.
Blackstart Resources as is required of
Regional Entities under currently
effective EOP–007–0 and whether such
a requirement would be beneficial. The
NOPR also sought comment on: (i)
Whether reliability coordinators should
be required to verify their restoration
planning through actual events, steady
state and dynamic simulations or
testing; and (ii) how a transmission
operator should proceed when its
restoration plan is rejected by a
reliability coordinator. Lastly, the NOPR
proposed that the ERO collect data on
the performance of system restoration
exercises conducted by transmission
operators and reliability coordinators to
assist the ERO and Commission in
identifying the effectiveness of
restoration plans, establishing best
practices, and determining the effects on
personnel performance.
16. In response to the NOPR,
comments were filed by nine interested
parties.21 These comments assisted us in
the evaluation of the NERC’s proposal.
In the discussion below, we address the
issues raised by these comments.
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
15. On November 17, 2010, the
Commission issued its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)
proposing to approve the three proposed
EOP Reliability Standards, EOP–001–1,
EOP–005–2, and EOP–006–2 and
defined term Blackstart Resource (and
the retirement of the four superseded
standards, EOP–001–0, EOP–005–1,
EOP–006–1, and EOP–009–0, the
definition of ‘‘Blackstart Capability
Plan,’’ and the ERO’s withdrawal of
EOP–007–0).20 With respect to proposed
Reliability Standard EOP–005–2, the
NOPR proposed to direct NERC to
modify the Standard to address the
Commission’s concern regarding the
periodic testing of telecommunication
facilities needed to implement
restoration plans. In addition, the
Commission sought comment on: (i)
What is intended by the term ‘‘unique
tasks’’ as used in the context of proposed
Requirement R11 of EOP–005–2; (ii)
whether guidance should be provided
regarding the term, and if so, how it
should be provided; and (iii) whether
those tasks should be indentified in
each transmission operator’s restoration
plan. With respect to proposed
Reliability Standard EOP–006–2, the
NOPR sought comment as to why the
Standard does not require reliability
coordinators to maintain a database of
A. Approval of Proposed Reliability
Standards
17. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to approve the three EOP
Reliability Standards and the glossary
term filed by NERC in this proceeding.
None of the nine interested parties filing
comments to the NOPR objects to such
an approval. For the reasons described
below, the Commission adopts the
NOPR proposal and approves Reliability
Standards EOP–001–1, EOP–005–2, and
EOP–006–2 as well as the proposed
glossary term ‘‘Blackstart Resource’’ as
just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.22 EOP–005–2 and
EOP–006–2 clarify the responsibilities
of the reliability coordinator and
transmission operator in the restoration
process and restoration planning and
address the Commission’s directives in
Order No. 693 related to the EOP
Standards. By enhancing the rigor of the
restoration planning process, the
Reliability Standards represent an
improvement from the current
Standards and will improve the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
The Commission is not directing any
20 System Restoration Reliability Standards,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 71625 (Nov.
24, 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,666 (2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
II. Discussion
21 NERC, The Edison Electric Institute (EEI),
American Public Power Association (APPA), the
ISO/RTO Council (IRC), Pacificorp, City of Santa
Clara, California (Santa Clara), Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), and NorthWestern
Corporation (NorthWestern) filed comments.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company filed
supporting EEI’s comments.
22 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
modifications to the three new
Reliability Standards. Nevertheless, as
discussed below, commenters raised
several issues for consideration, at the
time these standards are next revisited,
which we believe could improve these
new Reliability Standards. The
Commission also approves NERC
retiring the four currently effective
Reliability Standards, EOP–001–0, EOP–
005–1, EOP–006–1, and EOP–009–0 as
well as the definition of ‘‘Blackstart
Capability Plan’’ and withdrawing
pending Reliability Standard EOP–007–
0 concurrent with the effectiveness of
the EOP–001–1, EOP–005–2, and EOP–
006–2 and the definition of the term
‘‘Blackstart Resource.’’
B. Vagueness of Term ‘‘Unique Tasks’’
18. Requirement R11 of EOP–005–2
requires that a minimum of two hours
of system restoration training be
provided every two years to field
switching personnel performing ‘‘unique
tasks’’ associated with the transmission
operator’s restoration plan. In the
NOPR, the Commission expressed
concern that the applicable entities may
not understand what the term ‘‘unique
tasks’’ means. We requested comment on
what is intended by that term and on
whether guidance should be provided to
the transmission operators, transmission
owners, and distribution providers who
are responsible for providing training. In
addition, the NOPR sought comment as
to whether the unique tasks should be
identified in each transmission
operator’s restoration plan.
Comment
19. NERC comments that the term
‘‘unique tasks’’ is not intended to have
any meaning beyond the dictionary
definition of the words. Everyday tasks
of field switching personnel are not
considered unique, but tasks not
included in the person’s normal duties
(e.g., operation of a synchroscope)
would be considered unique. NERC and
APPA do not perceive a reliability
benefit in requiring identification of
unique tasks in restoration plans. NERC
acknowledges that it could promote the
development of guidance to aid entities
in complying with Requirement R11.
20. EEI comments that while it would
be difficult to define ‘‘unique tasks’’ in
a manner that could be broadly applied
to affected entities, the standards
drafting team believed that the term was
clearly understood as a practical matter.
Companies should be afforded
discretion to determine how the term is
defined within their restoration plans,
but, to the extent that compliance issues
arise, EEI would encourage NERC to
consider developing compliance
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
guidance as needed. IRC also believes
the term is generally understood by the
applicable entities and that it is
appropriate for each transmission
operator’s restoration plan to identify
the particular tasks for which training is
required.
21. APPA states that the diversity of
entities and their specific approaches to
system restoration prevented the
standard drafting team from developing
guidance on the term but agrees that
registered entities could benefit from a
best practices document that provides
examples of unique tasks.
22. Santa Clara comments that a onesize-fits-all definition would not be
helpful, and the affected entities should
define unique tasks on a case-by-case
basis. It agrees that unique tasks should
be included within the transmission
operator’s restoration plan. Pacificorp
comments that training should be
provided to field switching personnel
performing any restoration tasks
associated with implementing the
transmission operator’s restoration plan.
Addressing each sub-Requirement of
Requirement R1 would provide an
appropriate framework for a system
restoration training program. Pacificorp
and NorthWestern oppose additional
guidance or requirements in the
Standard. BPA, on the other hand, is
unsure what is intended by the term
‘‘unique tasks’’ and supports a specific
definition to avoid any ambiguity.
notes that this Reliability Standard will
not become effective for at least 24
months, during which time ambiguities
in language or differences of opinion
among affected entities may be resolved
in practical ways. Once the Standard is
effective, if industry determines that
ambiguity with the term arises, it would
be appropriate for NERC to consider its
proposal to develop a guideline to aid
entities in their compliance obligations.
Commission Determination
23. Based on NERC’s comment that
the term ‘‘unique tasks’’ is to be
understood in accordance with the
normal meaning of the words and the
majority of the commenters’ assertions
that the variety of approaches to system
restoration precludes greater specificity,
we find that the term conveys as much
precision as circumstances allow. To the
extent that it would be helpful to the
affected entities to specify in a
transmission operator’s restoration plan
which tasks are deemed unique, the
entities are encouraged to do so, but the
Commission does not require such
specificity at this time.
24. Both EEI and APPA recognize
potential benefit in the development of
further guidance as to the term ‘‘unique
tasks,’’ and BPA is uncertain as to the
meaning of the term and consequently
unsure as to how to demonstrate
compliance with its training obligation.
NERC, in its comments about the term,
states that it ‘‘could promote the
development of a guideline to aid
registered entities in complying with
Requirement R11.’’23 The Commission
26. Each of the commenters opposes
adding a telecommunications
requirement to EOP–005–2 on the basis
that such a requirement would be
redundant given Communications
Reliability Standard COM–001–1.1,
which requires testing of routine
communication facilities on an on-going
basis. Several comments noted that
duplicative requirements can lead to
potential confusion.
23 NERC
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
25. Requirement R5 of Reliability
Standard EOP–005–1 provides for
periodic testing of telecommunication
facilities needed to implement
restoration plans, but this Requirement
has no counterpart in EOP–005–2. In the
NOPR, the Commission proposed
requiring the ERO to develop a
modification to EOP–005–2 to address
the Commission’s concern that entities
involved in system restoration ensure
restoration-specific telecommunications
equipment, phone lists, and protocols
are tested as part of ongoing restoration
preparedness. The Commission further
stated its concern that, in light of the
importance of communication to the
restoration process, testing should be
done more frequently than during
annual drills, exercises or simulations
as is required under Reliability Standard
EOP–005–1.
Comments
Commission Determination
27. Reliability Standard COM–001–1
does not apply to generation operators
or distribution providers.24 Further, we
do not accept that each entity whose
telecommunications facilities will be
needed during the system restoration
process is currently subject to COM–
001–1.1 Requirement R2 which
provides that ‘‘[e]ach Reliability
Coordinator, Transmission Operator and
Balancing Authority shall manage,
alarm, test and/or actively monitor vital
telecommunications facilities. Special
attention shall be given to emergency
telecommunications facilities and
24 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 478–493.
at 4–5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
C. Telecommunication Facility Testing
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16281
equipment not used for routine
communications.’’
28. NERC notes in its comments that
the Reliability Coordination Standard
Drafting Team is currently working on
Project 2006–06 to develop a set of
revisions to Reliability Standard COM–
001–1.1 to tighten requirements relating
to communication capabilities. The
Commission believes the objectives of
this project in managing, alarming,
testing and/or actively monitoring vital
primary and emergency
telecommunication facilities will close
this gap in the Reliability Standard after
it is completed and approved.
Accordingly, consistent with NERC’s
comments on its current project and
concerns not to create redundancy in
development of Reliability Standards,
NERC should close the gap in the
applicability of the draft COM–001–2 so
it addresses generation operators and
distribution providers.
D. Emergency Operations Planning
29. Reliability Standard EOP–005–2
requires each transmission operator to
identify each blackstart resource and its
characteristics, but this requirement has
no counterpart for reliability
coordinators in EOP–006–2. The
Commission expressed concern and
invited comment in the NOPR on
whether the absence of a required list of
its Blackstart Resources could deny the
reliability coordinator a potentially
useful tool in maintaining reliability.
Comments
30. NERC notes that the transmission
operator, not the reliability coordinator,
maintains direct contact with the
blackstart resources, and reliability
coordinators have sufficient authority to
request information needed to identify
blackstart resources should such
information be required. NERC, EEI,
IRC, and APPA do not believe a
requirement to maintain a database of
blackstart resources would improve
reliability. Santa Clara, however,
requests that the Commission direct
NERC to revise Requirement R2 of
Reliability Standard EOP–005–2 to
specify that transmission operators
provide copies of their restoration plans
to those entities included in the plan
within 60 days of the plan’s approval by
the appropriate reliability coordinator to
ensure that resources identified in the
plan are capable of complying with the
plan.
Commission Determination
31. Since a reliability coordinator
obtains copies of all its constituent
transmission operators’ restoration
plans and has the ability to obtain
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
16282
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
information regarding the identity and
characteristics of blackstart resources
from its transmission operators, we
agree there is no reliability need for it
to maintain a duplicative database. With
regard to Santa Clara’s request, we
believe that the determination whether
resources in a restoration plan are
capable of complying with the plan is
made during the transmission operator’s
development of its plan as required by
Requirement R1, not once the plan is
approved by the reliability coordinator.
For this reason, we do not see a need to
direct the modification to Requirement
R2 that Santa Clara requests.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
E. System Restoration Coordination
32. Reliability Standard EOP–005–2
requires each transmission operator to
verify that its restoration plan achieves
its intended function. There is no
similar requirement in EOP–006–2
regarding the reliability coordinator’s
restoration plan. The Commission
sought comment on whether the same or
a similar requirement should apply to
reliability coordinators. In addition, the
Standard also requires reliability
coordinators to approve, or disapprove
with written reasons, the restoration
plans of each of their constituent
transmission operators. The
Commission invited comment as to how
a transmission operator should proceed
when its restoration plan is rejected by
a reliability coordinator.
Comments
33. NERC, EEI, and IRC comment that
a reliability coordinator’s restoration
plan is essentially a compilation of the
restoration plans of its constituent
transmission operators. Given that EOP–
005–2 requires transmission operators to
verify their restoration plans and that
EOP–006–2 requires reliability
coordinators to conduct system
restoration drills with their constituent
transmission operators and generation
owners, requiring further verification of
the same plans by the reliability
coordinator would be duplicative and
not provide additional reliability
benefit.
34. With respect to how a
transmission operator should proceed
when its reliability coordinator rejects
its restoration plan, NERC states that
when a restoration plan is rejected by a
reliability coordinator, the reliability
coordinator is required to supply one or
more reasons for its rejection, and the
transmission operator should then be
able to re-submit a revised plan. NERC
does not believe it is necessary to
document this process in additional
requirements since the dialogue
between the two entities is no different
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
than the routine coordination that
normally occurs between the
transmission operator and its reliability
coordinator. EEI, APPA, and IRC agree
that there is no need for additional
procedures to be spelled out.
35. IRC, BPA, and Santa Clara all
comment that the reliability coordinator
should be the final authority to resolve
conflicts. Santa Clara nevertheless states
that if the transmission operator and
reliability coordinator cannot resolve
their differences because the
transmission operator believes
compliance with the reliability
coordinator’s decision is infeasible, the
transmission operator should be
allowed to appeal either to the Regional
Entity or, in the case of the Western
Interconnect, the dispute should be
brought to NERC.
36. EEI observes that the two-year
implementation period for these
Standards will likely provide sufficient
time to resolve any differences in order
for a reliability coordinator to approve
a transmission operator’s initial
restoration plan. Any subsequent
rejection of a revised restoration plan
will not result in a reliability gap since
the initial plan will remain in place. EEI
further notes that any rejection of a
restoration plan by a reliability
coordinator will necessarily be based on
generic reliability engineering criteria
readily understood by the transmission
operator. Pacificorp, on the other hand,
notes that the requirement that the
reliability coordinator give stated
reasons for any disapproval of a
submitted restoration plan does not
ensure the reasons will specify the
circumstances under which a
transmission operator should revise its
plan. Pacificorp states that a reliability
coordinator must have formal criteria
for reviewing, approving and
disapproving restoration plans and
standard procedures for those plans to
be revised and resubmitted for review.
Pacificorp also suggest a modification to
Requirement R5 to provide that a
transmission operator’s submitted
restoration plan shall be deemed
approved if the reliability coordinator
fails to approve or disapprove the plan
within the required 30 days.
Commission Determination
37. We accept the commenters’
position that requiring verification of
the reliability coordinators’ restoration
plan through a requirement in EOP–
006–2 would be largely duplicative. As
commenters point out, Reliability
Standard EOP–006–2 requires reliability
coordinators to conduct system
restoration drills including their
constituent transmission operators and
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
generation owners. Such drills,
exercises or simulations, together with
the verifications carried out by the
transmission operators of their
restoration plans and approval of their
plans by the reliability coordinators
under EOP–005–2, serve as verification
of the reliability coordinators’ plans and
as such, should serve to identify
difficulties in a reliability coordinator’s
restoration plan.
38. We agree with EEI that the basis
on which a reliability coordinator
rejects a restoration plan will
necessarily be based on generic
engineering criteria easily understood
by the transmission operator. We also
agree with those commenters who
reaffirm that the ultimate arbiter of
coordination and compatibility of
transmission operators’ restoration
plans is the reliability coordinator. For
these reasons, we do not see a need to
direct modifications as Pacificorp and
Santa Clara suggest that could
circumvent the reliability coordinator’s
authority concerning the approval or
disapproval of a restoration plan.
However, we agree with Pacificorp that
Reliability Standard EOP–006–2, which
establishes requirements to enable
coordinated system restoration and
ensure reliability is maintained during
system restoration, is not the
appropriate place to include any
specific criteria or procedures for the
review and revision of transmission
operators’ restoration plans. We
recognize that documenting such
criteria and procedures may have utility
in facilitating the settlement of
disagreements when a reliability
coordinator rejects a transmission
operator’s restoration plan. Nonetheless,
we leave it to the ERO Reliability
Standard development process to
determine whether the merit is
sufficient to compel the development of
such criteria or procedures.
F. Data Reporting
39. Given the importance of effective
blackstart and restoration plans and
well-trained personnel, the NOPR
proposed that the ERO collect data on
the performance of system restoration
exercises and make such data available
to transmission operators, reliability
coordinators and the Commission. This
data could then be used to identify the
effectiveness of restoration plans and
help identify improvements to enhance
restoration. The Commission sought
comment on the proposed data
collection.
Comments
40. NERC notes that formal
debriefings are held after each required
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
drill and is unclear whether there would
be any additional reliability benefit
arising from the data collection
contemplated in the NOPR. EEI
proposes that companies should be
allowed to gather experience on the new
requirements before undertaking data
collection efforts and points out that the
North American Transmission Forum
(NATF) would be an appropriate venue
for discussions on the efficacy of
various training experiences. BPA and
NorthWestern also cite NATF as an
appropriate venue to share best
practices. BPA views its restoration
information as extremely sensitive and
perceives risk that such information
could fall into the wrong hands.
41. NERC, EEI, APPA, Pacificorp, and
NorthWestern question the reliability
benefit of creating such a database
compared to the burden it would
impose on the industry. NERC asks
whether developing such a database
would direct industry resources where
they can best serve reliability. IRC does
not see the value of the proposed data
gathering, but notes section 1600—
Requests for Data or Information of
NERC’s Rules of Procedure 25 could be
an appropriate means of collecting data
without creating an ongoing
requirement.
Commission Determination
42. The Commission agrees with
NERC that the formal debriefing of
system restoration drills, exercises and
simulations can capture lessons learned
and identify best practices. But lessons
learned in such debriefings are not
necessarily communicated to all who
might benefit from them. In addition,
the Commission understands that NATF
may be an appropriate forum to discuss
industry activity and best practices, but
we continue to believe that there would
be a reliability benefit in the ERO
aggregating and disseminating lessons
learned derived from restoration drills,
exercises and simulations. Nevertheless,
we will allow the industry to develop
some experience with the new
Reliability Standards and then review
whether or not to pursue this matter
under section 39.2(d) of the
Commission’s regulations and the use of
Requests for Data or Information under
section 1600 of NERC’s Rules of
Procedure or through some other means.
G. Violation Risk Factors/Violation
Severity Levels
43. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed deferring action on the
proposed violation risk factors (VRF)
and violation severity levels (VSL) for
the proposed Reliability Standards until
the Commission acts on NERC’s
pending petition in Docket No. RR08–4–
005, in which NERC proposes a ‘‘rollup’’ approach for VRF and VSL
assignments by which NERC would
only assign VRF and VSL to the main
requirements and not to subRequirements.26 Subsequent to the
NOPR, on December 1, 2010, NERC
made a compliance filing to the
Commission in Docket No. RR08–04–
006 submitting new VSL to supersede
those presented in the NERC Petition.
Commission Determination
44. No comments were received
regarding this matter. Accordingly, the
Commission will defer discussion on
the proposed violation risk factors and
violation severity levels assigned to
EOP–005–2 and EOP–006–2 until after
16283
the Commission issues a final order
acting on NERC’s petition in Docket No.
RR08–4–005 and Docket No. RR08–4–
006.
III. Information Collection Statement
45. The following collections of
information contained in this Reliability
Standard have been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1955.27 OMB’s regulations require OMB
to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.28
46. The Commission solicited
comments on the need for and the
purpose of the information contained in
these three Emergency Operations and
Performance Reliability Standards and
the corresponding burden to implement
them. The commission received
comments on its proposed data
reporting requirement regarding the
performance of system restoration
exercises which we address in this Final
Rule. The Commission has not directed
any modifications to the Requirements
in the three Reliability Standards being
approved. As a result of this Final Rule
the annual burden will increase by an
estimated 47,472 hours. This is a
reduction from the burden estimates
provided in the NOPR, with respect to
reporting data to NERC; however, we
have not similarly reduced the
estimated time expended by reliability
coordinators on recordkeeping in order
to better reflect their enhanced
involvement in the planning process.
47. Burden Estimate: The estimated
burden and for the requirements in this
Final Rule follow:
Number of
respondents
Number of
annual
responses per
respondent
Hours per respondent per
response
Total annual hours
(A)
FERC–725A data collection
(B)
(C)
(A × B × C)
26
176
2
1
Recordkeeping: 8 .............
Compliance: 116 ..............
Recordkeeping: 16 ...........
Recordkeeping: 416.
Compliance: 20,416.
Recordkeeping: 2,816.
230
1
80 ......................................
18,400.
678
1
8 ........................................
5,424.
Total ....................................................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Reliability Coordinators data retention ......................
Transmission operators reporting data to their reliability coordinator and reducing blackstart arrangements to writing.
Generator operator system restoration responsibilities including testing and maintaining records.
Transmission owner and distribution provider training and recordkeeping.
........................
........................
...........................................
47,472 hours.
25 North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, Rules of Procedure 85–87 (2011),
available at https://www.nerc.com/files/
NERC_Rules_of_Procedure_ EFFECTIVE_
20110101.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
26 Docket No. RR08–4–005 comprises NERC’s
March 5, 2010 Violation Severity Level Compliance
Filing submitted in response to Order No. 722 and
an August 10, 2009 informational filing in which
NERC proposes assigning VRF and VSL only to the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
main Requirements in each Reliability Standard
and not to the sub-requirements.
27 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
28 5 CFR 1320.11.
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
16284
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
• Total Estimated Annual Hours for
Collection: (Reporting/Compliance +
recordkeeping) = 47,472 hours.
• Reporting/Compliance = 44,240
hours @ $132/hour = $5,839,680.
• Recordkeeping = 3,232 hours @
$17/hour = $54,944.
• Total Cost = $5,894,624.
• Title: Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
• Action: FERC 725A, Proposed
Modification to FERC–725A.
• OMB Control No: 1902–0244.
• Respondents: Business or other for
profit, and/or not for profit institutions.
• Frequency of Responses: On
occasion.
• Necessity of the Information: This
Final Rule would approve revised
Reliability Standards that modify the
existing requirement for system
restoration from a blackstart. The
proposed Reliability Standards require
some entities to commit agreements or
understandings to writing and/or to
draft written procedures, and retain
records. Other entities may have to
produce and maintain training
materials.
48. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426
[Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the
Executive Director, e-mail:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (202)
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
Comments on the requirements of this
order may also be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security
reasons, comments should be sent by
e-mail to OMB at
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please
reference OMB Control Number 1902–
0244 and the docket number of this
rulemaking in your submission.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
IV. Environmental Analysis
49. 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.29 The action taken in the
Final Rule falls within the categorical
exclusion in the Commission’s
regulations for rules that are clarifying,
corrective or procedural, for information
gathering, analysis, and
29 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR
47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
dissemination.30 Accordingly, neither
an environmental impact statement nor
an environmental assessment is
required.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
50. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 31 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The RFA mandates
consideration of regulatory alternatives
that accomplish the stated objectives of
a proposed rule and that minimize any
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration’s
(SBA) Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small
business.32 The SBA has established a
size standard for electric utilities,
stating that a firm is small if, including
its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in
the transmission, generation and/or
distribution of electric energy for sale
and its total electric output for the
preceding twelve months did not exceed
four million megawatt hours.33
51. Many of the entities to which the
requirements of this rule would apply
do not fall within the definition of small
entities, but most transmission owners,
and most distribution providers would
be deemed small entities. The proposed
Reliability Standards clarify the
elements of restoration plans and
training requirements and give
reliability coordinators a greater role in
review and approval of plans, but the
proposed Reliability Standards reflect
primarily a continuation of existing
system restoration requirements
currently applicable to reliability
coordinators, transmission operators
and generation operators.
52. Based on available information
regarding NERC’s compliance registry,
and our best assessment of the
application of the proposed Reliability
Standards, approximately 1,110 entities
will be responsible for compliance with
proposed Reliability Standards EOP–
005–2 and EOP–006–2, of which
approximately 678 are transmission
owners and distribution providers not
already subject to the existing system
restoration Reliability Standards. Of the
678 transmission owners and
distribution providers, only that subset
whose field switching personnel are
identified in the restoration plan as
having unique tasks will be subject to a
new requirement under the proposed
30 18
CFR 380.4(a)(5).
U.S.C. 601–12.
32 13 CFR 121.101.
33 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1.
31 5
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
standards, i.e., providing two hours of
system restoration training every two
calendar years to such personnel. The
Commission estimates that this
requirement will impose a cost of
perhaps $1,056 per year on transmission
owners and distribution providers, (and
indeed for some entities there will be
only de minimis additional cost because
field personnel are already being trained
in restoration tasks) and therefore
should not present significant operating
costs.
53. Based on this understanding, the
Commission certifies that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
VI. Document Availability
54. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through
FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov)
and in FERC’s Public Reference Room
during normal business hours (8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
55. From FERC’s Home Page on the
Internet, this information is available on
eLibrary. The full text of this document
is available on eLibrary in PDF and
Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access
this document in eLibrary, type the
docket number excluding the last three
digits of this document in the docket
number field.
56. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during
normal business hours from FERC
Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll
free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
57. These regulations are effective
May 23, 2011. The Commission notes
that although the determinations made
in this Final Rule are effective May 23,
2011 in those jurisdictions where
regulatory approval is required,
Reliability Standard EOP–001–1 will
not become effective until the first day
of the first calendar quarter three
months after regulatory approval is
obtained, and EOP–005–2 and EOP–
006–2 approved in this Final Rule will
not become effective until 24 months
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
after the first day of the first quarter
after applicable regulatory approval.
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.
By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–6739 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
COMMISSION
18 CFR Part 410
Amendments to the Water Quality
Regulations, Water Code and
Comprehensive Plan To Update Water
Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants in
the Delaware Estuary and Extend
These Criteria to Delaware Bay
Delaware River Basin
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
By Resolution No. 2010–13 on
December 8, 2010, the Delaware River
Basin Commission (DRBC or
‘‘Commission’’) approved amendments
to its Water Quality Regulations, Water
Code and Comprehensive Plan to
update the Commission’s human health
and aquatic life stream quality
objectives (also called water quality
criteria) for toxic pollutants in the
Delaware Estuary (DRBC Water Quality
Zones 2 through 5) and extended
application of the criteria to Delaware
Bay (DRBC Water Quality Zone 6).
DATES: Effective Date: March 23, 2011.
The incorporation by reference of the
publications listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of March 23, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about the technical basis for
the rule, please contact Dr. Ronald
MacGillivray at 609–477–7252.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Delaware River Basin Commission is a
federal-state regional agency charged
with managing the water resources of
the Delaware River Basin without regard
to political boundaries. Its members are
the governors of the four basin states—
Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania—and the North Atlantic
Division Commander of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, representing the
Federal government.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Notice of the proposed amendments
appeared in the Federal Register (75 FR
41106) on July 15, 2010 as well as in the
Delaware Register of Regulations (14 DE
Reg. 70–83 (08/01/2010)) on August 1,
2010, the New Jersey Register (42 N.J.R.
1701(a)) on August 4, 2010, the New
York State Register (p. 6) on July 21,
2010 and the Pennsylvania Bulletin (40
Pa. B. 4208) on July 31, 2010. A public
hearing was held on September 23, 2010
and written comments were accepted
through October 1, 2010. The
commission received two written
submissions and no oral testimony on
the proposed changes. The Commission
made minor revisions to the proposed
amendments in response to the
comments received. A comment and
response document setting forth the
Commission’s responses and revisions
in detail was approved by the
Commission simultaneously with
adoption of the final rule.
Resolution No. 2010–13, the text of
the final rule, a copy of the comment
and response document, and a basis and
background document published
simultaneously with the proposed rule
are available on the Commission’s Web
site, at https://www.state.nj.us/drbc/
toxics_info.htm.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 410
Incorporation by reference, Water
audit, Water pollution control, Water
reservoirs, Water supply, Watersheds.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Delaware River Basin
Commission amends part 410 of title 18
of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 410—BASIN REGULATIONS;
WATER CODE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MANUAL—PART III WATER QUALITY
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 410
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Delaware River Basin Compact,
75 Stat. 688.
2. Amend § 410.1 by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
■
§ 410.1 Basin regulations—Water Code
and Administrative Manual—Part III Water
Quality Regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Work, services, activities and
facilities affecting the conservation,
utilization, control, development or
management of water resources within
the Delaware River Basin are subject to
regulations contained within the
Delaware River Basin Water Code with
Amendments Through December 8,
2010 and the Administrative Manual—
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16285
Part III Water Quality Regulations with
Amendments Through December 8,
2010. * * *
Dated: March 15, 2011.
Pamela M. Bush,
Commission Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–6636 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6360–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 172
[Docket No. FDA–2002–F–0198] (formerly
Docket No. 2002F–0316)
Food Additives Permitted for Direct
Addition to Food for Human
Consumption; Bacteriophage
Preparation
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Final rule; response to
objections and denial of requests for a
hearing and stay of effective date.
ACTION:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is responding to
objections and is denying requests that
it has received for a hearing on the final
rule that amended the food additive
regulations to provide for the use of a
bacteriophage preparation as an
antimicrobial agent against Listeria
monocytogenes on ready-to-eat (RTE)
meat and poultry products. After
reviewing the objections to the final rule
and the requests for a hearing, the
Agency has concluded that the
objections do not raise issues of material
fact that justify a hearing or otherwise
provide a basis for revoking the
amendment to the regulation. FDA also
is denying the request for a stay of the
effective date of the final rule.
DATES: Effective date of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of
August 18, 2006 (71 FR 47729)
confirmed: August 18, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Wallwork, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–
265), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park,
MD 20740–3835, 301–436–1303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Introduction
FDA published a notice in the Federal
Register of July 22, 2002 (67 FR 47823),
announcing the filing of food additive
petition, FAP 2A4738, by Intralytix Inc.,
to amend the food additive regulations
by providing for the safe use of a
E:\FR\FM\23MRR1.SGM
23MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16277-16285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6739]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM10-16-000; Order No. 749]
System Restoration Reliability Standards
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission
approves three Emergency Operations and Preparedness (EOP) Reliability
Standards, EOP-001-1 (Emergency Operations Planning), EOP-005-2 (System
Restoration from Blackstart Resources), and EOP-006-2 (System
Restoration Coordination) as well as the definition of the term
``Blackstart Resource'' submitted to the Commission for approval by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Electric
Reliability Organization certified by the Commission. The approved
Reliability Standards require transmission operators, generation
operators, and certain transmission owners and distribution providers
to ensure that plans, facilities and personnel are prepared to enable
system restoration from Blackstart Resources and require reliability
coordinators to establish plans and prepare personnel to enable
effective coordination of the system restoration process. The
Commission also approves the NERC's proposal to retire four existing
EOP Reliability Standards and a definition that are replaced by the
Standards and definition approved in this Final Rule.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 23,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terence Burke (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DChttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20426, (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 502-6498.
David O'Connor (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
[[Page 16278]]
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DChttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20426, (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 502-
6695.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.
Final Rule
Issued March 17,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011.
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves three Emergency Operations and Preparedness (EOP)
Reliability Standards, EOP-001-1 (Emergency Operations Planning), EOP-
005-2 (System Restoration from Blackstart Resources), and EOP-006-2
(System Restoration Coordination) as well as the definition of the term
``Blackstart Resource'' submitted to the Commission for approval by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) certified by the Commission. The
approved Reliability Standards require transmission operators,
generation operators, and certain transmission owners and distribution
providers to ensure that plans, facilities, and personnel are prepared
to enable system restoration from Blackstart Resources and require
reliability coordinators to establish plans and prepare personnel to
enable effective coordination of the system restoration process. The
Commission also approves NERC's proposal to retire four existing EOP
Reliability Standards and the defined term ``Blackstart Capability
Plan'' concurrent with the effectiveness of the Standards and the term
Blackstart Resource approved in this Final Rule. In those jurisdictions
where regulatory approval is required, Reliability Standard EOP-001-1
will not become effective until the first day of the first calendar
quarter three months after regulatory approval is obtained, and EOP-
005-2 and EOP-006-2 approved in this Final Rule will not become
effective until 24 months after the first day of the first quarter
after applicable regulatory approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ``Blackstart'' capability refers to the ability of a generating
unit or station to start operating and delivering electric power
without assistance from the electric system. Blackstart units are
essential to restart generation and restore power to the grid in the
event of an outage. As discussed below, NERC proposes to define
``Blackstart Resource'' as ``a generating unit(s) and its associated
set of equipment which has the ability to be started without support
from the System or is designed to remain energized without connection
to the remainder of the System, with the ability to energize a bus. * *
*''
3. In Order No. 693, the Commission determined that it would not
take action on certain proposed Reliability Standards that required
supplemental information from a Regional Entity. Such Reliability
Standards refer to regional criteria or procedures that had not been
submitted to the Commission for approval and, as such, are referred to
as ``fill-in-the-blank'' standards.\2\ Pending Reliability Standard
EOP-007-0 is one such fill-in-the-blank standard. The Reliability
Standards approved herein provide a standardized, national approach to
address the Commission's concerns regarding pending EOP-007-0, as set
forth in Order No. 693. Thus, in addition to the retirement of certain
currently effective EOP Reliability Standards, we also approve the
withdrawal of pending Reliability Standard EOP-007-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242, at P 297, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 1https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 FERC ] 61,053
(https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
4. On March 16,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC,\3\
including the Reliability Standards: EOP-001-0, EOP-005-1, EOP-006-1,
and EOP-009-0.\4\ The Commission neither approved nor remanded EOP-007-
0 because it applied only to regional reliability organizations, but
Order No. 693 did provide guidance for the ERO's further consideration
of the Reliability Standard.\5\ In addition, under section 215(d)(5) of
the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to the
EOP Reliability Standards to address certain issues identified by the
Commission. At issue in the immediate proceeding are two new EOP
standards, EOP-005-2 and EOP-006-2 that would replace the currently
effective Reliability Standards EOP-005-1, EOP-006-1, and EOP-009-0,
pending Standard EOP-007-0, and necessitate a conforming change in EOP-
001-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. P 304-1899.
\4\ Id. P 542-676.
\5\ Id. P 644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Currently Effective EOP Reliability Standards
Reliability Standard EOP-005-1
5. Currently effective Reliability Standard EOP-005-1 requires
transmission operators, balancing authorities, and reliability
coordinators to have a restoration plan, test the plan, train operating
personnel in the restoration plan, and have the ability to restore the
Interconnection using the plans following a blackout. In Order No. 693,
the Commission directed the ERO to develop, through the Reliability
Standard development process, a modification to EOP-005-1 that
identifies time frames for training and review of restoration plan
requirements to simulate contingencies and prepare operators for
anticipated and unforeseen events.\6\ The Commission also directed the
ERO to consider various commenters' suggestions in future revisions of
the Reliability Standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. P 630.
\7\ Id. P 628.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability Standard EOP-006-1
6. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved Reliability
Standard EOP-006-1 addressing reliability coordination and system
restoration. The Reliability Standard sets requirements for reliability
coordinators during system restoration and requires that they have a
coordinating role to ensure reliability is maintained during system
restoration. Under section 215 of the FPA, the Commission directed the
ERO to develop a modification to EOP-006-1 to ensure that the
reliability coordinator is involved in the development and approval of
system restoration plans.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. P 638.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending Reliability Standard EOP-007-0
7. Pending Reliability Standard EOP-007-0 deals with establishing,
maintaining and documenting regional blackstart capability plans. In
Order No. 693, the Commission did not act on EOP-007-0 pending NERC's
providing additional information.\9\ The Commission, however, directed
the ERO to consider various commenters' suggestions relating to
assigning compliance obligations directly to the entities that provide
the pertinent data rather than to the Regional Entity, placing
responsibility for the regional blackstart plan with the reliability
coordinator, recognizing that nuclear units have no blackstart
capability, revising the definition of a blackstart unit, and
committing arrangements for coordinating blackstart capability to
contracts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. P 297, 644.
\10\ Id. P 642-643, 647.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability Standard EOP-009-0
8. Currently effective Reliability Standard EOP-009-0 deals with
implementing and documenting testing
[[Page 16279]]
of blackstart generating units. In Order No. 693, the Commission
directed the ERO to consider suggestions for improvements raised during
the comment period. One commenter stated the Reliability Standard
should provide details on what constitutes a blackstart test and
another stated that NERC should consolidate the Reliability Standard
with EOP-007-0.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. P 674, 676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NERC Petition
9. In a December 31,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009 filing (NERC Petition),\12\ NERC requests
Commission approval of its proposed definition of the term ``Blackstart
Resource'' and proposed Reliability Standards EOP-001-1 (Emergency
Operating Planning),\13\ EOP-005-2 (System Restoration from Blackstart
Resources), and EOP-006-2 (System Restoration Coordination). NERC also
seeks to concurrently retire four currently effective Reliability
Standards: EOP-001-0, EOP-005-1, EOP-006-1, and EOP-009-0 as well as
the definition of ``Blackstart Capability Plan'' and withdraw pending
Reliability Standard EOP-007-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Dec. 31,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009
Petition for Approval of Three Emergency Preparedness and Operations
Reliability Standards and One New Glossary Term and for Retirement
of Five Existing Reliability Standards and One Glossary Term. The
three Reliability standards are included as Exhibit A to NERC's
Petition. In addition, under 18 CFR 40.3 of the Commission's
regulations, all Commission-approved Reliability Standards are
available on NERC's Web site at https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20. See 18 CFR 40.3.
\13\ Concurrent with its filing in this Docket, NERC filed a
petition in Docket No. RM10-15-000 seeking approval of certain
Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination (IRO)
Reliability Standards. As part of its IRO filing, NERC proposed to
retire Requirement R2 of EOP-001-0. Each petition proposes unique
changes to EOP-001-0 reflecting the distinct issues addressed by the
respective Reliability Standards drafting teams. In this Final Rule,
the Commission is addressing Version 2 of EOP-001 contained in
Exhibit B of the NERC Petition which reflects both the IRO and the
EOP proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards ``represent
significant revision and improvement from the current set of
enforceable standards'' and address the Commission's directives in
Order No. 693 related to the EOP standards.\14\ NERC explains that,
among other enhancements, ``[t]he proposed revisions now clearly
delineate the responsibilities of the Reliability Coordinator and
Transmission Operator in the restoration process and restoration
planning.'' \15\ NERC describes the proposed Reliability Standards as
providing ``specific requirements for what must be in a restoration
plan, how and when it needs to be updated and approved, what needs to
be provided to operators and what training is necessary for personnel
involved in restoration processes.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NERC Petition at 4.
\15\ Id. at 5.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Definition of Blackstart Resource
11. NERC requests approval of the term ``Blackstart Resource'' and
the concurrent retirement of the term ``Blackstart Capability Plan.''
The proposed definition of ``Blackstart Resource'' is:
A generating unit(s) and its associated set of equipment which
has the ability to be started without support from the System or is
designed to remain energized without connection to the remainder of
the System, with the ability to energize a bus, meeting the
Transmission Operator's restoration plan needs for real and reactive
power capability, frequency and voltage control, and that has been
included in the Transmission Operator's restoration plan.
The term ``Blackstart Capacity Plan'' is currently used solely in
EOP-007-0 and EOP-009-0, both of which are replaced with proposed
Reliability Standards EOP-005-2 and EOP-006-2.
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-001-1
12. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-001-1 contains seven
requirements for the stated purpose of requiring each transmission
operator and balancing authority to develop, maintain, and implement a
set of plans to mitigate operating emergencies and to coordinate these
plans with other transmission operators, balancing authorities, and the
reliability coordinator.\17\ It modifies EOP-001-0 by deleting
Requirement R3.4, which requires transmission operators and balancing
authorities to develop, maintain and implement restoration plans,
because proposed Reliability Standards EOP-005-2 and EOP-006-2
incorporate and expand upon this Requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Reliability Standard EOP-001-1, Section A.3. (Purpose).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-005-2
13. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-005-2 contains eighteen
requirements for the stated purpose of ensuring that plans, facilities,
and personnel are prepared to enable system restoration from Blackstart
Resources, and to ensure reliability is maintained during restoration
and priority is placed on restoring the Interconnection.\18\ The
proposed Reliability Standard applies to transmission operators,
generation operators, and transmission owners and distribution
providers identified in the transmission operator's restoration plan.
Requirement R1 requires each transmission operator to have a
reliability coordinator-approved restoration plan utilizing Blackstart
Resources and details the scope and elements of such a plan.
Requirement R2 instructs each transmission operator to provide entities
that have a role in the restoration plan with a description of their
roles and tasks. Requirements R3 through R6 address annual plan
reviews, updating practices, location of plans and plan verification.
Following a disturbance, Requirements R7 and R8 provide guidance on
following the plan or making needed adjustments and coordinating when
re-synchronizing two systems together. Requirement R9 describes testing
information the transmission operator must have to verify the
Blackstart Resources meet required expectations. Requirements R10
through R12 cover system restoration training requirements for system
operators and field switching personnel. Blackstart Resource agreements
between the transmission operator and generator operator, or mutually
agreed upon procedures or protocols are addressed in Requirement R13.
Duties of a generator owner with a Blackstart Resource are provided in
Requirements R14 through R18, which address operating procedures,
change notification, testing for each Blackstart Resource and training
of operating personnel on Blackstart Resources. Proposed Reliability
Standard EOP-005-2 is intended to supersede all of currently effective
Reliability Standard EOP-005-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Reliability Standard EOP-005-2, Section A.4. (Purpose).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-006-2
14. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-006-2 contains ten
requirements with the stated purpose of ensuring that the reliability
coordinator establishes plans and prepares personnel to enable
effective coordination of the system restoration process, to maintain
reliability during restoration, and to place priority on restoring the
Interconnection.\19\ Requirement R1 requires reliability coordinators
to have restoration plans that utilize Blackstart Resources and
specifies the scope and elements of such plans. Requirement R2
[[Page 16280]]
covers distribution of the reliability coordinator's restoration plan.
Requirements R3 through R5 provide for review of the reliability
coordinator's restoration plan and the plans of each neighboring
reliability coordinator and each transmission operator located in the
reliability coordinator's area. Any conflicts between neighboring
reliability coordinators' plans are to be resolved within thirty days,
and transmission operators' plans shall be approved or disapproved,
with stated reasons, within thirty days of receipt by the reliability
coordinator. Requirement R6 requires that the reliability coordinator
must maintain copies of restoration plans in its primary and backup
control rooms. Requirements R7 and R8 describe the roles of reliability
coordinators to coordinate restoration efforts and authorize re-
synchronization of ``island'' areas. Requirements R9 and R10 address
training and participation in annual drills, exercises and simulations.
Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-006-2 is intended to supersede all of
currently effective Reliability Standard EOP-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Reliability Standard EOP-006-2, Section A.3. (Purpose).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
15. On November 17,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010, the Commission issued its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the three proposed EOP
Reliability Standards, EOP-001-1, EOP-005-2, and EOP-006-2 and defined
term Blackstart Resource (and the retirement of the four superseded
standards, EOP-001-0, EOP-005-1, EOP-006-1, and EOP-009-0, the
definition of ``Blackstart Capability Plan,'' and the ERO's withdrawal
of EOP-007-0).\https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20\ With respect to proposed Reliability Standard EOP-
005-2, the NOPR proposed to direct NERC to modify the Standard to
address the Commission's concern regarding the periodic testing of
telecommunication facilities needed to implement restoration plans. In
addition, the Commission sought comment on: (i) What is intended by the
term ``unique tasks'' as used in the context of proposed Requirement
R11 of EOP-005-2; (ii) whether guidance should be provided regarding
the term, and if so, how it should be provided; and (iii) whether those
tasks should be indentified in each transmission operator's restoration
plan. With respect to proposed Reliability Standard EOP-006-2, the NOPR
sought comment as to why the Standard does not require reliability
coordinators to maintain a database of Blackstart Resources as is
required of Regional Entities under currently effective EOP-007-0 and
whether such a requirement would be beneficial. The NOPR also sought
comment on: (i) Whether reliability coordinators should be required to
verify their restoration planning through actual events, steady state
and dynamic simulations or testing; and (ii) how a transmission
operator should proceed when its restoration plan is rejected by a
reliability coordinator. Lastly, the NOPR proposed that the ERO collect
data on the performance of system restoration exercises conducted by
transmission operators and reliability coordinators to assist the ERO
and Commission in identifying the effectiveness of restoration plans,
establishing best practices, and determining the effects on personnel
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20\ System Restoration Reliability Standards, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 71625 (Nov. 24,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 32,666 (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by nine interested
parties.\21\ These comments assisted us in the evaluation of the NERC's
proposal. In the discussion below, we address the issues raised by
these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NERC, The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), American Public
Power Association (APPA), the ISO/RTO Council (IRC), Pacificorp,
City of Santa Clara, California (Santa Clara), Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), and NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern)
filed comments. Wisconsin Electric Power Company filed supporting
EEI's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
A. Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards
17. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve the three EOP
Reliability Standards and the glossary term filed by NERC in this
proceeding. None of the nine interested parties filing comments to the
NOPR objects to such an approval. For the reasons described below, the
Commission adopts the NOPR proposal and approves Reliability Standards
EOP-001-1, EOP-005-2, and EOP-006-2 as well as the proposed glossary
term ``Blackstart Resource'' as just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\22\ EOP-
005-2 and EOP-006-2 clarify the responsibilities of the reliability
coordinator and transmission operator in the restoration process and
restoration planning and address the Commission's directives in Order
No. 693 related to the EOP Standards. By enhancing the rigor of the
restoration planning process, the Reliability Standards represent an
improvement from the current Standards and will improve the reliability
of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission is not directing any
modifications to the three new Reliability Standards. Nevertheless, as
discussed below, commenters raised several issues for consideration, at
the time these standards are next revisited, which we believe could
improve these new Reliability Standards. The Commission also approves
NERC retiring the four currently effective Reliability Standards, EOP-
001-0, EOP-005-1, EOP-006-1, and EOP-009-0 as well as the definition of
``Blackstart Capability Plan'' and withdrawing pending Reliability
Standard EOP-007-0 concurrent with the effectiveness of the EOP-001-1,
EOP-005-2, and EOP-006-2 and the definition of the term ``Blackstart
Resource.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Vagueness of Term ``Unique Tasks''
18. Requirement R11 of EOP-005-2 requires that a minimum of two
hours of system restoration training be provided every two years to
field switching personnel performing ``unique tasks'' associated with
the transmission operator's restoration plan. In the NOPR, the
Commission expressed concern that the applicable entities may not
understand what the term ``unique tasks'' means. We requested comment
on what is intended by that term and on whether guidance should be
provided to the transmission operators, transmission owners, and
distribution providers who are responsible for providing training. In
addition, the NOPR sought comment as to whether the unique tasks should
be identified in each transmission operator's restoration plan.
Comment
19. NERC comments that the term ``unique tasks'' is not intended to
have any meaning beyond the dictionary definition of the words.
Everyday tasks of field switching personnel are not considered unique,
but tasks not included in the person's normal duties (e.g., operation
of a synchroscope) would be considered unique. NERC and APPA do not
perceive a reliability benefit in requiring identification of unique
tasks in restoration plans. NERC acknowledges that it could promote the
development of guidance to aid entities in complying with Requirement
R11.https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20. EEI comments that while it would be difficult to define
``unique tasks'' in a manner that could be broadly applied to affected
entities, the standards drafting team believed that the term was
clearly understood as a practical matter. Companies should be afforded
discretion to determine how the term is defined within their
restoration plans, but, to the extent that compliance issues arise, EEI
would encourage NERC to consider developing compliance
[[Page 16281]]
guidance as needed. IRC also believes the term is generally understood
by the applicable entities and that it is appropriate for each
transmission operator's restoration plan to identify the particular
tasks for which training is required.
21. APPA states that the diversity of entities and their specific
approaches to system restoration prevented the standard drafting team
from developing guidance on the term but agrees that registered
entities could benefit from a best practices document that provides
examples of unique tasks.
22. Santa Clara comments that a one-size-fits-all definition would
not be helpful, and the affected entities should define unique tasks on
a case-by-case basis. It agrees that unique tasks should be included
within the transmission operator's restoration plan. Pacificorp
comments that training should be provided to field switching personnel
performing any restoration tasks associated with implementing the
transmission operator's restoration plan. Addressing each sub-
Requirement of Requirement R1 would provide an appropriate framework
for a system restoration training program. Pacificorp and NorthWestern
oppose additional guidance or requirements in the Standard. BPA, on the
other hand, is unsure what is intended by the term ``unique tasks'' and
supports a specific definition to avoid any ambiguity.
Commission Determination
23. Based on NERC's comment that the term ``unique tasks'' is to be
understood in accordance with the normal meaning of the words and the
majority of the commenters' assertions that the variety of approaches
to system restoration precludes greater specificity, we find that the
term conveys as much precision as circumstances allow. To the extent
that it would be helpful to the affected entities to specify in a
transmission operator's restoration plan which tasks are deemed unique,
the entities are encouraged to do so, but the Commission does not
require such specificity at this time.
24. Both EEI and APPA recognize potential benefit in the
development of further guidance as to the term ``unique tasks,'' and
BPA is uncertain as to the meaning of the term and consequently unsure
as to how to demonstrate compliance with its training obligation. NERC,
in its comments about the term, states that it ``could promote the
development of a guideline to aid registered entities in complying with
Requirement R11.''\23\ The Commission notes that this Reliability
Standard will not become effective for at least 24 months, during which
time ambiguities in language or differences of opinion among affected
entities may be resolved in practical ways. Once the Standard is
effective, if industry determines that ambiguity with the term arises,
it would be appropriate for NERC to consider its proposal to develop a
guideline to aid entities in their compliance obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NERC at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Telecommunication Facility Testing
25. Requirement R5 of Reliability Standard EOP-005-1 provides for
periodic testing of telecommunication facilities needed to implement
restoration plans, but this Requirement has no counterpart in EOP-005-
2. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed requiring the ERO to develop a
modification to EOP-005-2 to address the Commission's concern that
entities involved in system restoration ensure restoration-specific
telecommunications equipment, phone lists, and protocols are tested as
part of ongoing restoration preparedness. The Commission further stated
its concern that, in light of the importance of communication to the
restoration process, testing should be done more frequently than during
annual drills, exercises or simulations as is required under
Reliability Standard EOP-005-1.
Comments
26. Each of the commenters opposes adding a telecommunications
requirement to EOP-005-2 on the basis that such a requirement would be
redundant given Communications Reliability Standard COM-001-1.1, which
requires testing of routine communication facilities on an on-going
basis. Several comments noted that duplicative requirements can lead to
potential confusion.
Commission Determination
27. Reliability Standard COM-001-1 does not apply to generation
operators or distribution providers.\24\ Further, we do not accept that
each entity whose telecommunications facilities will be needed during
the system restoration process is currently subject to COM-001-1.1
Requirement R2 which provides that ``[e]ach Reliability Coordinator,
Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority shall manage, alarm, test
and/or actively monitor vital telecommunications facilities. Special
attention shall be given to emergency telecommunications facilities and
equipment not used for routine communications.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 478-493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. NERC notes in its comments that the Reliability Coordination
Standard Drafting Team is currently working on Projecthttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2006-06 to
develop a set of revisions to Reliability Standard COM-001-1.1 to
tighten requirements relating to communication capabilities. The
Commission believes the objectives of this project in managing,
alarming, testing and/or actively monitoring vital primary and
emergency telecommunication facilities will close this gap in the
Reliability Standard after it is completed and approved. Accordingly,
consistent with NERC's comments on its current project and concerns not
to create redundancy in development of Reliability Standards, NERC
should close the gap in the applicability of the draft COM-001-2 so it
addresses generation operators and distribution providers.
D. Emergency Operations Planning
29. Reliability Standard EOP-005-2 requires each transmission
operator to identify each blackstart resource and its characteristics,
but this requirement has no counterpart for reliability coordinators in
EOP-006-2. The Commission expressed concern and invited comment in the
NOPR on whether the absence of a required list of its Blackstart
Resources could deny the reliability coordinator a potentially useful
tool in maintaining reliability.
Comments
30. NERC notes that the transmission operator, not the reliability
coordinator, maintains direct contact with the blackstart resources,
and reliability coordinators have sufficient authority to request
information needed to identify blackstart resources should such
information be required. NERC, EEI, IRC, and APPA do not believe a
requirement to maintain a database of blackstart resources would
improve reliability. Santa Clara, however, requests that the Commission
direct NERC to revise Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard EOP-005-2
to specify that transmission operators provide copies of their
restoration plans to those entities included in the plan within 60 days
of the plan's approval by the appropriate reliability coordinator to
ensure that resources identified in the plan are capable of complying
with the plan.
Commission Determination
31. Since a reliability coordinator obtains copies of all its
constituent transmission operators' restoration plans and has the
ability to obtain
[[Page 16282]]
information regarding the identity and characteristics of blackstart
resources from its transmission operators, we agree there is no
reliability need for it to maintain a duplicative database. With regard
to Santa Clara's request, we believe that the determination whether
resources in a restoration plan are capable of complying with the plan
is made during the transmission operator's development of its plan as
required by Requirement R1, not once the plan is approved by the
reliability coordinator. For this reason, we do not see a need to
direct the modification to Requirement R2 that Santa Clara requests.
E. System Restoration Coordination
32. Reliability Standard EOP-005-2 requires each transmission
operator to verify that its restoration plan achieves its intended
function. There is no similar requirement in EOP-006-2 regarding the
reliability coordinator's restoration plan. The Commission sought
comment on whether the same or a similar requirement should apply to
reliability coordinators. In addition, the Standard also requires
reliability coordinators to approve, or disapprove with written
reasons, the restoration plans of each of their constituent
transmission operators. The Commission invited comment as to how a
transmission operator should proceed when its restoration plan is
rejected by a reliability coordinator.
Comments
33. NERC, EEI, and IRC comment that a reliability coordinator's
restoration plan is essentially a compilation of the restoration plans
of its constituent transmission operators. Given that EOP-005-2
requires transmission operators to verify their restoration plans and
that EOP-006-2 requires reliability coordinators to conduct system
restoration drills with their constituent transmission operators and
generation owners, requiring further verification of the same plans by
the reliability coordinator would be duplicative and not provide
additional reliability benefit.
34. With respect to how a transmission operator should proceed when
its reliability coordinator rejects its restoration plan, NERC states
that when a restoration plan is rejected by a reliability coordinator,
the reliability coordinator is required to supply one or more reasons
for its rejection, and the transmission operator should then be able to
re-submit a revised plan. NERC does not believe it is necessary to
document this process in additional requirements since the dialogue
between the two entities is no different than the routine coordination
that normally occurs between the transmission operator and its
reliability coordinator. EEI, APPA, and IRC agree that there is no need
for additional procedures to be spelled out.
35. IRC, BPA, and Santa Clara all comment that the reliability
coordinator should be the final authority to resolve conflicts. Santa
Clara nevertheless states that if the transmission operator and
reliability coordinator cannot resolve their differences because the
transmission operator believes compliance with the reliability
coordinator's decision is infeasible, the transmission operator should
be allowed to appeal either to the Regional Entity or, in the case of
the Western Interconnect, the dispute should be brought to NERC.
36. EEI observes that the two-year implementation period for these
Standards will likely provide sufficient time to resolve any
differences in order for a reliability coordinator to approve a
transmission operator's initial restoration plan. Any subsequent
rejection of a revised restoration plan will not result in a
reliability gap since the initial plan will remain in place. EEI
further notes that any rejection of a restoration plan by a reliability
coordinator will necessarily be based on generic reliability
engineering criteria readily understood by the transmission operator.
Pacificorp, on the other hand, notes that the requirement that the
reliability coordinator give stated reasons for any disapproval of a
submitted restoration plan does not ensure the reasons will specify the
circumstances under which a transmission operator should revise its
plan. Pacificorp states that a reliability coordinator must have formal
criteria for reviewing, approving and disapproving restoration plans
and standard procedures for those plans to be revised and resubmitted
for review. Pacificorp also suggest a modification to Requirement R5 to
provide that a transmission operator's submitted restoration plan shall
be deemed approved if the reliability coordinator fails to approve or
disapprove the plan within the required 30 days.
Commission Determination
37. We accept the commenters' position that requiring verification
of the reliability coordinators' restoration plan through a requirement
in EOP-006-2 would be largely duplicative. As commenters point out,
Reliability Standard EOP-006-2 requires reliability coordinators to
conduct system restoration drills including their constituent
transmission operators and generation owners. Such drills, exercises or
simulations, together with the verifications carried out by the
transmission operators of their restoration plans and approval of their
plans by the reliability coordinators under EOP-005-2, serve as
verification of the reliability coordinators' plans and as such, should
serve to identify difficulties in a reliability coordinator's
restoration plan.
38. We agree with EEI that the basis on which a reliability
coordinator rejects a restoration plan will necessarily be based on
generic engineering criteria easily understood by the transmission
operator. We also agree with those commenters who reaffirm that the
ultimate arbiter of coordination and compatibility of transmission
operators' restoration plans is the reliability coordinator. For these
reasons, we do not see a need to direct modifications as Pacificorp and
Santa Clara suggest that could circumvent the reliability coordinator's
authority concerning the approval or disapproval of a restoration plan.
However, we agree with Pacificorp that Reliability Standard EOP-006-2,
which establishes requirements to enable coordinated system restoration
and ensure reliability is maintained during system restoration, is not
the appropriate place to include any specific criteria or procedures
for the review and revision of transmission operators' restoration
plans. We recognize that documenting such criteria and procedures may
have utility in facilitating the settlement of disagreements when a
reliability coordinator rejects a transmission operator's restoration
plan. Nonetheless, we leave it to the ERO Reliability Standard
development process to determine whether the merit is sufficient to
compel the development of such criteria or procedures.
F. Data Reporting
39. Given the importance of effective blackstart and restoration
plans and well-trained personnel, the NOPR proposed that the ERO
collect data on the performance of system restoration exercises and
make such data available to transmission operators, reliability
coordinators and the Commission. This data could then be used to
identify the effectiveness of restoration plans and help identify
improvements to enhance restoration. The Commission sought comment on
the proposed data collection.
Comments
40. NERC notes that formal debriefings are held after each required
[[Page 16283]]
drill and is unclear whether there would be any additional reliability
benefit arising from the data collection contemplated in the NOPR. EEI
proposes that companies should be allowed to gather experience on the
new requirements before undertaking data collection efforts and points
out that the North American Transmission Forum (NATF) would be an
appropriate venue for discussions on the efficacy of various training
experiences. BPA and NorthWestern also cite NATF as an appropriate
venue to share best practices. BPA views its restoration information as
extremely sensitive and perceives risk that such information could fall
into the wrong hands.
41. NERC, EEI, APPA, Pacificorp, and NorthWestern question the
reliability benefit of creating such a database compared to the burden
it would impose on the industry. NERC asks whether developing such a
database would direct industry resources where they can best serve
reliability. IRC does not see the value of the proposed data gathering,
but notes section 1600--Requests for Data or Information of NERC's
Rules of Procedure \25\ could be an appropriate means of collecting
data without creating an ongoing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Rules of
Procedure 85-87 (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2011), available at https://www.nerc.com/files/NERC_Rules_of_Procedure_ EFFECTIVE_https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20110101.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
42. The Commission agrees with NERC that the formal debriefing of
system restoration drills, exercises and simulations can capture
lessons learned and identify best practices. But lessons learned in
such debriefings are not necessarily communicated to all who might
benefit from them. In addition, the Commission understands that NATF
may be an appropriate forum to discuss industry activity and best
practices, but we continue to believe that there would be a reliability
benefit in the ERO aggregating and disseminating lessons learned
derived from restoration drills, exercises and simulations.
Nevertheless, we will allow the industry to develop some experience
with the new Reliability Standards and then review whether or not to
pursue this matter under section 39.2(d) of the Commission's
regulations and the use of Requests for Data or Information under
section 1600 of NERC's Rules of Procedure or through some other means.
G. Violation Risk Factors/Violation Severity Levels
43. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed deferring action on the
proposed violation risk factors (VRF) and violation severity levels
(VSL) for the proposed Reliability Standards until the Commission acts
on NERC's pending petition in Docket No. RR08-4-005, in which NERC
proposes a ``roll-up'' approach for VRF and VSL assignments by which
NERC would only assign VRF and VSL to the main requirements and not to
sub-Requirements.\26\ Subsequent to the NOPR, on December 1,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010, NERC
made a compliance filing to the Commission in Docket No. RR08-04-006
submitting new VSL to supersede those presented in the NERC Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Docket No. RR08-4-005 comprises NERC's March 5,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010
Violation Severity Level Compliance Filing submitted in response to
Order No. 722 and an August 10,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009 informational filing in which
NERC proposes assigning VRF and VSL only to the main Requirements in
each Reliability Standard and not to the sub-requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
44. No comments were received regarding this matter. Accordingly,
the Commission will defer discussion on the proposed violation risk
factors and violation severity levels assigned to EOP-005-2 and EOP-
006-2 until after the Commission issues a final order acting on NERC's
petition in Docket No. RR08-4-005 and Docket No. RR08-4-006.
III. Information Collection Statement
45. The following collections of information contained in this
Reliability Standard have been submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1955.\27\ OMB's regulations require OMB to approve
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
\28\ 5 CFR 13https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. The Commission solicited comments on the need for and the
purpose of the information contained in these three Emergency
Operations and Performance Reliability Standards and the corresponding
burden to implement them. The commission received comments on its
proposed data reporting requirement regarding the performance of system
restoration exercises which we address in this Final Rule. The
Commission has not directed any modifications to the Requirements in
the three Reliability Standards being approved. As a result of this
Final Rule the annual burden will increase by an estimated 47,472
hours. This is a reduction from the burden estimates provided in the
NOPR, with respect to reporting data to NERC; however, we have not
similarly reduced the estimated time expended by reliability
coordinators on recordkeeping in order to better reflect their enhanced
involvement in the planning process.
47. Burden Estimate: The estimated burden and for the requirements
in this Final Rule follow:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of annual
FERC-725A data collection respondents responses per Hours per respondent per response Total annual hours
respondent
(A) (B) (C)..................................... (A x B x C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability Coordinators data 26 2 Recordkeeping: 8........................ Recordkeeping: 416.
retention.
Transmission operators reporting 176 1 Compliance: 116......................... Compliance:https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20,416.
data to their reliability Recordkeeping: 16....................... Recordkeeping: 2,816.
coordinator and reducing blackstart
arrangements to writing.
Generator operator system 230 1 80...................................... 18,400.
restoration responsibilities
including testing and maintaining
records.
Transmission owner and distribution 678 1 8....................................... 5,424.
provider training and recordkeeping.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... .............. .............. ........................................ 47,472 hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16284]]
Total Estimated Annual Hours for Collection: (Reporting/
Compliance + recordkeeping) = 47,472 hours.
Reporting/Compliance = 44,240 hours @ $132/hour =
$5,839,680.
Recordkeeping = 3,232 hours @ $17/hour = $54,944.
Total Cost = $5,894,624.
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System.
Action: FERC 725A, Proposed Modification to FERC-725A.
OMB Control No: 1902-0244.
Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule would
approve revised Reliability Standards that modify the existing
requirement for system restoration from a blackstart. The proposed
Reliability Standards require some entities to commit agreements or
understandings to writing and/or to draft written procedures, and
retain records. Other entities may have to produce and maintain
training materials.
48. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DChttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202)
502-8663, fax: (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 273-0873]. Comments on the requirements of this
order may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DChttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference OMB Control Number 1902-
0244 and the docket number of this rulemaking in your submission.
IV. Environmental Analysis
49. 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.\29\ The
action taken in the Final Rule falls within the categorical exclusion
in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying,
corrective or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\30\ Accordingly, neither an environmental impact
statement nor an environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\30\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
50. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \31\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\32\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
\32\ 13 CFR 121.101.
\33\ 13 CFR 121.https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. Many of the entities to which the requirements of this rule
would apply do not fall within the definition of small entities, but
most transmission owners, and most distribution providers would be
deemed small entities. The proposed Reliability Standards clarify the
elements of restoration plans and training requirements and give
reliability coordinators a greater role in review and approval of
plans, but the proposed Reliability Standards reflect primarily a
continuation of existing system restoration requirements currently
applicable to reliability coordinators, transmission operators and
generation operators.
52. Based on available information regarding NERC's compliance
registry, and our best assessment of the application of the proposed
Reliability Standards, approximately 1,110 entities will be responsible
for compliance with proposed Reliability Standards EOP-005-2 and EOP-
006-2, of which approximately 678 are transmission owners and
distribution providers not already subject to the existing system
restoration Reliability Standards. Of the 678 transmission owners and
distribution providers, only that subset whose field switching
personnel are identified in the restoration plan as having unique tasks
will be subject to a new requirement under the proposed standards,
i.e., providing two hours of system restoration training every two
calendar years to such personnel. The Commission estimates that this
requirement will impose a cost of perhaps $1,056 per year on
transmission owners and distribution providers, (and indeed for some
entities there will be only de minimis additional cost because field
personnel are already being trained in restoration tasks) and therefore
should not present significant operating costs.
53. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
VI. Document Availability
54. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DChttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20426.
55. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
56. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support athttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|208-3676) or e-mail at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 502-
8371, TTY (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification
57. These regulations are effective May 23,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011. The Commission
notes that although the determinations made in this Final Rule are
effective May 23,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011 in those jurisdictions where regulatory approval
is required, Reliability Standard EOP-001-1 will not become effective
until the first day of the first calendar quarter three months after
regulatory approval is obtained, and EOP-005-2 and EOP-006-2 approved
in this Final Rule will not become effective until 24 months
[[Page 16285]]
after the first day of the first quarter after applicable regulatory
approval. 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.
By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc.https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011-6739 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
