Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific Requirements of the Disturbance Control Performance Standard, 30245-30249 [2013-12131]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
30245
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by a report of
potential aircraft hardware failure in the
autopilot control panel and the center switch
panel. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the hardware/software combination
within the autopilot control panel and/or
center switch panel, which could result in
uncommanded fire suppression system
activation and simultaneous shutdown of
both engines.
www.eclipse.aero. You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
must mail or hand deliver an original
and 14 copies of their comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May
15, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
[FR Doc. 2013–12142 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am]
(g) Update Aircraft Computer Software
(ACS)
(1) For airplanes equipped with Avio or
Avio with ETT avionics suites: Within 6
calendar months after the effective date of
this AD, update the ACS following
paragraphs 3.A. through 3.C. of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Eclipse
Aerospace, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin
Number SB 500–31–014, Rev. A, dated
February 15, 2011.
(2) For airplanes equipped with NG 1.0
avionics suites: Within 6 calendar months
after the effective date of this AD, do one of
the following:
(i) Insert airplane flight manual Temporary
Revision (TR) 016 into the Limitations
section of the airplane flight manual
following paragraph 3.B.(1)(a) of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Eclipse
Aerospace, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin
Number SB 500–31–026, Rev. A, dated
November 6, 2012; or
(ii) Update the ACS following paragraphs
3.A. through 3.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Eclipse Aerospace, Inc.
Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 500–
31–019, Rev. B, dated March 13, 2013.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office
of General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
(202) 502–8524.
mark.bennett@ferc.gov.
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. (202) 502–8718.
syed.ahmad@ferc.gov.
18 CFR Part 40
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[Docket No. RM13–6–000]
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Chicago ACO, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(i) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Scott Fohrman, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office,
2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des
Plaines, Illinois 60018; phone: (847) 294–
7136; fax: (847) 294–7834; email:
scott.fohrman@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Eclipse Aerospace, Inc., 26
East Palatine Road, Wheeling, Illinois 60090;
telephone: (877) 373–7978; Internet:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Electric Reliability Organization
Interpretation of Specific
Requirements of the Disturbance
Control Performance Standard
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
proposes to remand the proposed
interpretation of Reliability Standard
BAL–002–1, Disturbance Control
Performance, Requirements R4 and R5,
submitted to the Commission for
approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, the
Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization. Specifically,
the interpretation addresses whether
Balancing Authorities and Reserve
Sharing Groups are subject to
enforcement actions for failing to restore
Area Control Error within the 15-minute
Disturbance Recovery Period for
Reportable Disturbances that exceed the
most severe single Contingency. The
Commission proposes to remand the
proposed interpretation because it
changes a requirement of the Reliability
Standard, thereby exceeding the
permissible scope for interpretations.
DATES: Comments are due July 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number by any of
the following methods:
• Agency Web site: https://ferc.gov.
Documents created electronically using
word processing software should be
filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters
unable to file comments electronically
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Issued May 16, 2013)
1. Under section 215 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), the Commission
proposes to remand the proposed
interpretation of Reliability Standard
BAL–002–1, Disturbance Control
Performance, Requirements R4 and R5
submitted to the Commission for
approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the
Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO).
Specifically, the interpretation
addresses whether Balancing
Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups
are subject to compliance enforcement
actions for failing to restore Area
Control Error (ACE) within the 15minute Disturbance Recovery Period for
Reportable Disturbances that exceed the
most severe single Contingency (MSSC).
For the reasons explained below, the
Commission proposes to remand the
proposed interpretation because it
changes the requirements of the
Reliability Standard, thereby exceeding
the permissible scope for
interpretations. The Commission seeks
comments on its proposal.
I. Background
A. Section 215 of the FPA and
Standards Development Process
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards, subject to Commission
review and approval. Specifically, the
Commission may approve, by rule or
order, a proposed Reliability Standard
or modification to a Reliability Standard
if it determines that the Standard is just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
30246
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
interest.1 Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO,
subject to Commission oversight, or by
the Commission independently.2
Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the
Commission established a process to
select and certify an ERO,3 and
subsequently certified NERC.4
3. In March 2007, the Commission
issued Order No. 693, evaluating 107
Reliability Standards, including the
Disturbance Control Performance (BAL–
002–0) Reliability Standard.5 In Order
No. 693, the Commission approved
BAL–002–0. In addition, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the
Commission directed the ERO to
develop a modification to BAL–002–0
through the Reliability Standards
development process that: (1) Includes a
Requirement that explicitly provides
that Demand Side Management may be
used as a resource for contingency
reserves; (2) develops a continent-wide
contingency reserve policy; and (3)
refers to the ERO rather than the NERC
Operating Committee in Requirements
R4.2 and R6.2.6 On January 10, 2011,
the Commission approved BAL–002–1
via letter order,7 which addressed the
third directive described above.
4. NERC’s Rules of Procedure provide
that all persons ‘‘directly and materially
affected’’ by Bulk-Power System
reliability may request an interpretation
of a Reliability Standard.8 In response,
the ERO will assemble a team with
relevant expertise to address the
requested interpretation and also form a
ballot pool. NERC’s Rules of Procedure
provide that, within 45 days, the team
will draft an interpretation of the
Reliability Standard and submit it to the
ballot pool. If approved by the ballot
pool and subsequently by the NERC
1 16
U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
824o(e)(3).
3 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric
Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No.
672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
4 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v.
FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
5 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 316, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–
A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
6 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 356.
7 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 134
FERC ¶ 61,015 (2011).
8 NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A,
Standard Processes Manual, at 27–29. See North
American Electric Reliability Corp., 132 FERC
¶ 61,200 (2010) (approving revisions to Standards
Process Manual). On February 28, 2013, in pending
Docket No. RR13–2–000, NERC submitted proposed
revisions to the Standards Process Manual.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
2 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Board of Trustees (Board), the
interpretation is appended to the
Reliability Standard and filed with the
applicable regulatory authorities for
approval.
5. Further, NERC’s Rules of Procedure
state that ‘‘[a] valid interpretation
response provides additional clarity
about one or more Requirements, but
does not expand on any Requirement
and does not explain how to comply
with any Requirement.’’ 9
B. Reliability Standard BAL–002–1
6. The stated purpose of BAL–002–1
is to ‘‘ensure the Balancing Authority is
able to utilize its Contingency Reserve
to balance resources and demand and
return Interconnection frequency within
defined limits following a Reportable
Disturbance.’’ The NERC Glossary of
Terms Used in Reliability Standards
(Glossary) defines Reportable
Disturbance as ‘‘[A]ny event that causes
an ACE change greater than or equal to
80% of a Balancing Authority’s or
Reserve Sharing Group’s most severe
contingency.’’ 10
7. Reliability Standard BAL–002–1
has six Requirements. Most relevant to
the proposed interpretation,
Requirements R3 and R4 provide:
R3. Each Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group shall activate sufficient
Contingency Reserve to comply with the
DCS.
R3.1. As a minimum, the Balancing
Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall
carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to
cover the most severe single contingency. All
Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing
Groups shall review, no less frequently than
annually, their probable contingencies to
determine their prospective most severe
single contingencies.
R4. A Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group shall meet the Disturbance
Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance
Recovery Period for 100% of Reportable
Disturbances. The Disturbance Recovery
Criterion is:
R4.1. A Balancing Authority shall return its
ACE to zero if its ACE just prior to the
Reportable Disturbance was positive or equal
to zero. For negative initial ACE values just
prior to the Disturbance, the Balancing
Authority shall return ACE to its preDisturbance value.
R4.2. The default Disturbance Recovery
Period is 15 minutes after the start of a
Reportable Disturbance.
Also relevant to the proceeding is the
Additional Compliance Information
9 Id.
at 27.
Glossary at 56. NERC defines Area
Control Error or ‘‘ACE’’ as ‘‘the instantaneous
difference between net actual and scheduled
interchange, taking into account the effects of
Frequency Bias including correction for meter
error.’’ Id. at 5.
language in Part D of BAL–002–1, which
includes:
Reportable Disturbances—Reportable
Disturbances are contingencies that are
greater than or equal to 80% of the most
severe single Contingency . . .
Simultaneous Contingencies—Multiple
Contingencies occurring within one minute
or less of each other shall be treated as a
single Contingency. If the combined
magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the most severe single Contingency,
the loss shall be reported, but excluded from
compliance evaluation.
II. NERC’s Proposed Interpretation of
BAL–002–1 (R4 and R5)
8. On February 12, 2013, NERC filed
a petition (Petition) seeking approval of
the proposed interpretation of BAL–
002–1, developed in response to an
interpretation request submitted on
September 2, 2009 by the Northwest
Power Pool Reserve Sharing Group
(NWPP). NERC explains that NWPP
requested clarification on the following
matters:
(1) although a Disturbance that exceeds the
most severe single Contingency must be
reported by the Balancing Authority or
Reserve Sharing Group (as applicable), is the
Disturbance excluded from compliance
evaluation for the applicable Balancing
Authority or Reserve Sharing Group;
(2) with respect to either simultaneous
Contingencies or non-simultaneous multiple
Contingencies affecting a Reserve Sharing
Group, the exclusion from compliance
evaluation for Disturbances exceeding the
most severe single Contingency applies both
when
(a) all Contingencies occur within a single
Balancing Authority member of the Reserve
Sharing Group, and
(b) different Balancing Authorities within
the Reserve Sharing Group experience
separate Contingencies that occur
simultaneously, or non-simultaneously but
before the end of the Disturbance Recovery
Period following the first Reportable
Disturbance; and
(3) the meaning of the phrase ‘‘excluded
from compliance evaluation’’ as used in
Section 1.4 (‘‘Additional Compliance
Information’’) of Part D of BAL–002–0 and for
purposes of the preceding statements is that,
with respect to Disturbances that exceed the
most severe single Contingency for a
Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group (as applicable), a violation of BAL–
002–0 does not occur even if ACE is not
recovered within the Disturbance Recovery
Period (15 minutes unless adjusted pursuant
to BAL–002–0, R4.2).11
9. A proposed interpretation was first
balloted in February 2010, but failed to
achieve a two-third approval from the
ballot body.12 NERC staff determined
10 NERC
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11 NERC
Petition at 7.
Petition, Exh. C (Summary of the
Interpretation Development Proceedings and
Record of Development of Proposed Interpretation)
at 1–2.
12 NERC
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
that any further interpretation could not
be developed unless the team could
consider the measures and the
additional compliance elements of the
standard.13 In January 2012 NERC staff
told the NWPP their interpretation
request was ‘‘ineligible’’ under the
existing rules for developing
interpretations.14
10. ISO/RTO Council appealed this
decision, challenging the BAL–002–1
interpretation process. In a March 2012
letter responding to ISO/RTO Council,
NERC staff stated: ‘‘Given the difficulty
in interpreting the existing language of
the standard, NERC recommends to the
[ISO/RTO Council] and NWPP that they
consider developing and submitting a
Standard Authorization Request (SAR)
to the Standards Committee to address
their concern.’’ 15
11. At its May 2012 meeting, the
NERC Board Standards Oversight and
Technology Committee (SOTC)
concluded that ‘‘strict construction for
the purposes of interpretation was never
meant to limit the materials considered
in developing the interpretation solely
to the contents of the requirements in a
standard, but can include any language
in the standard, including compliance
related sections.’’ 16 The NERC
Standards Committee assembled
another drafting team that developed a
proposed interpretation that received a
90.34 percent approval vote in October
2012. On November 7, 2012, the NERC
BOT adopted the proposed
interpretation of BAL–002–1.
12. In its Petition, NERC states that, in
response to NWPP’s first question, the
proposed interpretation clarifies that
Balancing Authorities and Reserve
Sharing Groups are not subject to the
15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period
for Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.
13. With regard to the second
question, NERC explained that the
proposed interpretation provides that:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
[t]he standard was written to provide preacknowledged RSG’s the same considerations
as a single BA for purposes of exclusions
from DCS compliance evaluation . . . [T]his
applies to both multiple contingencies
occurring within one minute or less of each
other being treated as a single Contingency or
Contingencies that occur after one minute of
the start of a Reportable Disturbance but
13 Id. at 2. A November 2009 Resolution of the
NERC Board that pertained to interpretations
included the following passage: ‘‘[i]n deciding
whether or not to approve a proposed
interpretation, the board will use a standard of strict
construction and not seek to expand the reach of
the standard to correct a perceived gap or
deficiency in the standard.’’
14 NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
15 NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
16 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
before the end of the Disturbance Recovery
Period.
The standard, while recognizing
dynamically allocated RSGs, does NOT
provide the members of dynamically
allocated RSGs exclusions from DCS
compliance evaluation on an RSG basis. For
members of dynamically allocated RSGs, the
exclusions are provided only on a member
BA by member BA basis.17
14. In response to NWPP’s third
question regarding the exclusion
language in the Additional Compliance
Information provision of the standard,
the drafting team responded:
The Additional Compliance Information
section clearly states: ‘‘Simultaneous
contingencies—Multiple contingencies
occurring within one minute or less of each
other shall be treated as a single Contingency.
If the combined magnitude of the multiple
Contingencies exceeds the Most Severe
Single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance
evaluation.’’
Although Requirement R3 does mandate
that a BA or RSG activate sufficient
Contingency Reserves to comply with DCS
for every Reportable Disturbance, there is no
requirement to comply with or even report
disturbances that are below the Reportable
Disturbance level. The averaging obligation
does incent calculation and reporting of such
lesser events. If a Balancing Authority were
to experience a Disturbance five times greater
than its most severe single Contingency, it
would be required to report this Disturbance,
but would not be required to recover ACE
within 15 minutes following a Disturbance of
this magnitude.
An excludable disturbance is a disturbance
whose magnitude was greater than the
magnitude of the most severe single
contingency. Any other proposed
interpretation would result in treating BAL–
002–0 as if it required Balancing Authorities
and Reserve Sharing Groups to recover ACE
(to zero or pre-Disturbance levels, as
applicable) within the 15-minute Disturbance
Recovery Period without regard to
Disturbance magnitude. This is inconsistent
with (a) the reserve requirement specified in
R3.1 of BAL–002–0, (b) the text of Section 1.4
of Part D of BAL–002–0, and (c) the
documented history of the development of
BAL–002–0 . . .18
15. NERC contends that BAL–002–1 is
intended to be read as ‘‘an integrated
whole’’ and therefore uses the phrase
‘‘excluded from compliance evaluation’’
that appears in Part D, Section 1.5
(‘‘Additional Compliance Information’’)
as support for concluding that the 15minute Disturbance Recovery Period
contained in Requirement R4 of BAL–
002–1 does not apply to Disturbances
that exceed the MSSC.19
16. NERC asserts that ‘‘the proposed
interpretation is necessary to prevent
17 Id.
at 14–15
Petition at 16.
19 NERC Petition at 10–11.
18 NERC
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30247
Registered Entities from shedding load
to avoid possible violations of BAL–002,
a result that is inconsistent with
reliability principles.’’ 20 NERC further
asserts that ‘‘[i]f the Reliability Standard
is interpreted to require that ACE be
returned to zero even for a Disturbance
that exceeds the most severe single
Contingency, a Balancing Authority
could be required to take drastic
operational actions, even when other
measures of system reliability (voltage
stability, normal frequency, operation
within system operating limits, etc.)
indicate otherwise.’’ NERC adds that ‘‘a
lack of clarity on the interpretation of
[BAL–002] potentially has significant
financial and operational impacts on all
Balancing Authorities and Reserve
Sharing Groups.’’ 21
17. NERC asserts that the proposed
interpretation ‘‘neither expands on any
Requirement nor explains how to
comply with a Requirement.’’ 22 NERC
acknowledges that the proposed
interpretation differs from the
PacifiCorp Stipulation and Consent
Agreement, in which NERC staff and
Commission staff determined that
PacifiCorp violated BAL–002–0
Requirement R4 by failing to restore its
ACE within the 15-minute Disturbance
Recovery Period, despite a Disturbance
exceeding PacifiCorp’s MSSC.23
III. Discussion
18. We propose to remand NERC’s
interpretation of BAL–002–1 because it
fails to comport with the Commissionapproved requirement that
interpretations can only clarify, not
change, a Reliability Standard.24 Rather,
changes to a Reliability Standard must
be developed through NERC’s standards
development procedure as prescribed in
NERC’s Rules of Procedure.25 As
discussed below, NERC’s proposed
interpretation changes Requirement R4
of BAL–002–1 from its plain meaning,
and also effectively redefines the term
Reportable Disturbance as defined in the
NERC Glossary and used in BAL–002–
1.
19. NERC’s proposal interprets the
phrase ‘‘excluded from compliance
20 Id.
at 3.
at 12.
22 Petition at 11 (citing NERC Standards Process
Manual at 27).
23 NERC Petition at 16–17 (citing PacifiCorp, 137
FERC ¶ 61,176, at n.5 (2011) (PacifiCorp)).
24 NERC Standard Process Manual at 27 (‘‘[a]
valid interpretation response provides additional
clarity about one or more Requirements, but does
not expand on any Requirement . . .). The
Commission approved the NERC Standards Process
Manual in North American Electric Reliability
Corp., 132 FERC ¶ 61,200.
25 NERC Standard Process Manual at 12–14
(explaining the Standards Authorization Request
process).
21 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
30248
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
evaluation,’’ the exclusion language in
Part D (Additional Compliance
Information), Section 1.5 of BAL–002–1
as limiting the obligation to restore ACE
set forth in Requirement R4 of BAL–
002–1. As a result, while Requirement
R4 of BAL–002–1 provides that a
Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group ‘‘shall meet the Disturbance
Recovery Criterion within the
Disturbance Recovery Period [i.e., 15
minutes] for 100 percent of Reportable
Disturbances,’’ the NERC interpretation
limits Requirement R4 as applicable to
only some Reportable Disturbances.
20. Stated differently, while the term
‘‘Reportable Disturbance’’ is defined by
NERC as ‘‘contingencies that are greater
than or equal to 80% of the most severe
single contingency,’’ the NERC
interpretation changes the term to mean
contingencies that are greater than or
equal to 80 percent of the most severe
single contingency but no greater than
100 percent of the most severe single
contingency.26 In sum, the proposed
interpretation would relieve a Balancing
Authority or Reserve Sharing Group
from having to restore ACE within 15
minutes of Disturbances that are greater
than 100 percent of the most single
severe Contingency, notwithstanding
that BAL–002–1 Requirement R4
requires that: ‘‘[A] Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group shall meet the
Disturbance Recovery Criterion within
the Disturbance Recovery Period for
100% of Reportable Disturbances.’’
Thus, NERC’s proposal goes beyond
interpreting and, instead, changes a
requirement of the Reliability Standard.
21. As mentioned above, NERC’s
proposed interpretation focuses on the
following provision in Part D, Section
1.5 (‘‘Additional Compliance
Information’’) of BAL–002–1:
Simultaneous Contingencies—Multiple
Contingencies occurring within one minute
or less of each other shall be treated as a
single Contingency. If the combined
magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the most severe single Contingency,
the loss shall be reported, but excluded from
compliance evaluation.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
NERC’s proposal, however, is not
adequately supported. NERC interprets
the exclusion language in the
Additional Compliance Information
section as relieving Balancing
26 Reliability Standard BAL–002–1, Section D.
Compliance, 1.5 (Additional Compliance
Information) defines ‘‘Reportable Disturbance’’ as
‘‘contingencies that are greater than or equal to 80%
of the most severe single contingency.’’ The
definition of ‘‘Reportable Disturbance’’ in the NERC
Glossary is ‘‘[A]ny event that causes an ACE change
greater than or equal to 80% of a Balancing
Authority’s or reserve sharing group’s most severe
contingency.’’ NERC’s proposed interpretation is
incompatible with both definitions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
Authorities or Reserve Sharing Groups
from having to comply with the ACE
restoration obligation in Requirement
R4 for certain Disturbances. However,
this understanding is not supported by
Requirement R4 or the Additional
Compliance Information section.
Furthermore, NERC does not explain
how the proposed interpretation
naturally flows from the existing
provision.
22. A more natural reading of the
standard is that the exclusion language
in the Additional Compliance
Information section applies to the
Levels of Non-Compliance section
contained in BAL–002–1, Part D,
Section 2, which provides that:
Each Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group not meeting the DCS during
a calendar quarter shall increase its
Contingency Reserve obligation for the
calendar quarter…following the evaluation
by the NERC or Compliance Monitor… The
increase shall be directly proportional to the
non-compliance with the DCS in the
preceding quarter. This adjustment … is an
additional percentage of reserve needed
beyond the most severe single Contingency.’’
This language indicates that each
Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group is subject to a compliance
evaluation conducted by ‘‘the NERC or
Compliance Monitor’’ to determine
whether it has complied with the
Disturbance Control Standard (DCS)
and, if the Balancing Authority or
Reserve Sharing Group has not
complied, make a temporary upward
adjustment to its Contingency Reserve.
The exclusion language in the
Additional Compliance Information
section provides that, for multiple
contingency Disturbances, the Balancing
Authority or Reserve Sharing Group
must report the event, but may exclude
it from the evaluation of whether an
upward adjustment in Contingency
Reserves is warranted. NERC does not
explain why the exclusion language in
the Additional Compliance Information
section applies to the ACE restoration
obligation in Requirement R4 rather
than the reserve obligation review
process described in the Levels of NonCompliance section of BAL–002–1.
Thus, while NERC advocates reading
the Reliability Standard as ‘‘an
integrated whole,’’27 NERC’s
interpretation fails to address other
relevant language in BAL–002–1.
23. Accordingly, we propose to
remand NERC’s proposed interpretation
as an impermissible change to BAL–
002–1 outside the formal standards
development process.28 The Petition
27 NERC
Petition at 10.
proposal is based on the current wording
of BAL–002–1 and does not prejudge the merits of
28 Our
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
goes beyond a clarification by redefining
key terms that would change the plain
language of a requirement. The
Commission seeks comments on its
proposal.
IV. Information Collection Statement
24. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations require that
OMB approve certain reporting and
recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.29
The information contained here is also
subject to review under section 3507(d)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.30
25. As stated above, the Commission
previously approved, in letter order
RD10–15, the Reliability Standard that
is the subject of the current rulemaking.
This proposed rulemaking proposes to
remand the Interpretation of BAL–002–
1. Accordingly, the proposed
Commission action would not affect the
information reporting burden.
V. Environmental Analysis
26. 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.31 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.32 The
actions proposed herein fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 33 generally requires a
description and analysis of proposed
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
any formal proposal by NERC to replace to or
change the wording of BAL–002–1. To the extent
NERC and its stakeholders have concerns with the
requirements of BAL–002–1, they may seek to
address these concerns through the standards
development process.
29 5 CFR 1320.11.
30 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
31 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).
32 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
33 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business
Administration’s Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical
definition of a small business.34 For
electric utilities, 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. The
Commission does not expect the
proposed remand discussed herein to
materially change the cost for small
entities to comply with BAL–002–1.
Therefore, the Commission certifies that
the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VII. Comment Procedures
28. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this
notice to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due July 8, 2013.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM13–6–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments.
29. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word
processing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
30. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically must send
an original and 14 copies of their
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
31. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
VIII. Document Availability
32. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
34 See
13 CFR 121.201.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
33. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
34. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s Online Support at (202)
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–12131 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
[Docket No. SSA–2011–0081]
RIN 0960–AG28
Revised Listings for Growth Disorders
and Weight Loss in Children
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Several body systems in our
Listing of Impairments (listings) contain
listings for children based on
impairment of linear growth or weight
loss. We propose to replace those
listings with new listings, add a listing
to the genitourinary body system for
children, and provide new introductory
text for each listing explaining how to
apply the new criteria. The proposed
revisions to our listings reflect our
program experience, advances in
medical knowledge, comments we
received from medical experts and the
public at an outreach policy conference,
and comments we received in response
to a notice of intent to issue regulations
and request for comments (request for
comments) and an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). We are
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30249
also proposing conforming changes in
our regulations for title XVI of the Social
Security Act (Act).
DATES: To ensure that your comments
are considered, we must receive them
by no later than July 22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of three methods—Internet,
fax, or mail. Do not submit the same
comments multiple times or by more
than one method. Regardless of which
method you choose, please state that
your comments refer to Docket No.
SSA–2011–0081 so that we may
associate your comments with the
correct regulation.
Caution: You should be careful to
include in your comments only
information that you wish to make
publicly available. We strongly urge you
not to include in your comments any
personal information, such as Social
Security numbers or medical
information.
1. Internet: We strongly recommend
that you submit your comments via the
Internet. Please visit the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Use the Search
function to find docket number SSA–
2011–0081. The system will issue a
tracking number to confirm your
submission. You will not be able to
view your comment immediately
because we must post each comment
manually. It may take up to a week for
your comment to be viewable.
2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966–
2830.
3. Mail: Address your comments to
the Office of Regulations and Reports
Clearance, Social Security
Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building,
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
Maryland 21235–6401.
Comments are available for public
viewing on the Federal eRulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov or
in person, during regular business
hours, by arranging with the contact
person identified below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical
Listings Improvement, Social Security
Administration, 6401 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–
6401, (410) 965–1020. For information
on eligibility or filing for benefits, call
our national toll-free number, 1–800–
772–1213, or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or
visit our Internet site, Social Security
Online, at https://
www.socialsecurity.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
What revisions are we proposing?
We propose to:
E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM
22MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30245-30249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12131]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM13-6-000]
Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific
Requirements of the Disturbance Control Performance Standard
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remand the proposed
interpretation of Reliability Standard BAL-002-1, Disturbance Control
Performance, Requirements R4 and R5, submitted to the Commission for
approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. Specifically,
the interpretation addresses whether Balancing Authorities and Reserve
Sharing Groups are subject to enforcement actions for failing to
restore Area Control Error within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery
Period for Reportable Disturbances that exceed the most severe single
Contingency. The Commission proposes to remand the proposed
interpretation because it changes a requirement of the Reliability
Standard, thereby exceeding the permissible scope for interpretations.
DATES: Comments are due July 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any
of the following methods:
Agency Web site: https://ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. (202) 502-8524. mark.bennett@ferc.gov.
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. (202) 502-8718. syed.ahmad@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Issued May 16, 2013)
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission
proposes to remand the proposed interpretation of Reliability Standard
BAL-002-1, Disturbance Control Performance, Requirements R4 and R5
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). Specifically, the interpretation
addresses whether Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups are
subject to compliance enforcement actions for failing to restore Area
Control Error (ACE) within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period
for Reportable Disturbances that exceed the most severe single
Contingency (MSSC). For the reasons explained below, the Commission
proposes to remand the proposed interpretation because it changes the
requirements of the Reliability Standard, thereby exceeding the
permissible scope for interpretations. The Commission seeks comments on
its proposal.
I. Background
A. Section 215 of the FPA and Standards Development Process
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may
approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or
modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public
[[Page 30246]]
interest.\1\ Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced
by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\2\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission
established a process to select and certify an ERO,\3\ and subsequently
certified NERC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
\2\ Id. 824o(e)(3).
\3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
\4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In March 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, evaluating
107 Reliability Standards, including the Disturbance Control
Performance (BAL-002-0) Reliability Standard.\5\ In Order No. 693, the
Commission approved BAL-002-0. In addition, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed the ERO to develop a
modification to BAL-002-0 through the Reliability Standards development
process that: (1) Includes a Requirement that explicitly provides that
Demand Side Management may be used as a resource for contingency
reserves; (2) develops a continent-wide contingency reserve policy; and
(3) refers to the ERO rather than the NERC Operating Committee in
Requirements R4.2 and R6.2.\6\ On January 10, 2011, the Commission
approved BAL-002-1 via letter order,\7\ which addressed the third
directive described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 316, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
\6\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 356.
\7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 134 FERC ] 61,015
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that all persons ``directly
and materially affected'' by Bulk-Power System reliability may request
an interpretation of a Reliability Standard.\8\ In response, the ERO
will assemble a team with relevant expertise to address the requested
interpretation and also form a ballot pool. NERC's Rules of Procedure
provide that, within 45 days, the team will draft an interpretation of
the Reliability Standard and submit it to the ballot pool. If approved
by the ballot pool and subsequently by the NERC Board of Trustees
(Board), the interpretation is appended to the Reliability Standard and
filed with the applicable regulatory authorities for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, Standard Processes
Manual, at 27-29. See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 132
FERC ] 61,200 (2010) (approving revisions to Standards Process
Manual). On February 28, 2013, in pending Docket No. RR13-2-000,
NERC submitted proposed revisions to the Standards Process Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Further, NERC's Rules of Procedure state that ``[a] valid
interpretation response provides additional clarity about one or more
Requirements, but does not expand on any Requirement and does not
explain how to comply with any Requirement.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reliability Standard BAL-002-1
6. The stated purpose of BAL-002-1 is to ``ensure the Balancing
Authority is able to utilize its Contingency Reserve to balance
resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency within
defined limits following a Reportable Disturbance.'' The NERC Glossary
of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (Glossary) defines Reportable
Disturbance as ``[A]ny event that causes an ACE change greater than or
equal to 80% of a Balancing Authority's or Reserve Sharing Group's most
severe contingency.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NERC Glossary at 56. NERC defines Area Control Error or
``ACE'' as ``the instantaneous difference between net actual and
scheduled interchange, taking into account the effects of Frequency
Bias including correction for meter error.'' Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 has six Requirements. Most
relevant to the proposed interpretation, Requirements R3 and R4
provide:
R3. Each Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall
activate sufficient Contingency Reserve to comply with the DCS.
R3.1. As a minimum, the Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group shall carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to cover the
most severe single contingency. All Balancing Authorities and
Reserve Sharing Groups shall review, no less frequently than
annually, their probable contingencies to determine their
prospective most severe single contingencies.
R4. A Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall meet
the Disturbance Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery
Period for 100% of Reportable Disturbances. The Disturbance Recovery
Criterion is:
R4.1. A Balancing Authority shall return its ACE to zero if its
ACE just prior to the Reportable Disturbance was positive or equal
to zero. For negative initial ACE values just prior to the
Disturbance, the Balancing Authority shall return ACE to its pre-
Disturbance value.
R4.2. The default Disturbance Recovery Period is 15 minutes
after the start of a Reportable Disturbance.
Also relevant to the proceeding is the Additional Compliance
Information language in Part D of BAL-002-1, which includes:
Reportable Disturbances--Reportable Disturbances are
contingencies that are greater than or equal to 80% of the most
severe single Contingency . . .
Simultaneous Contingencies--Multiple Contingencies occurring
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the most severe single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.
II. NERC's Proposed Interpretation of BAL-002-1 (R4 and R5)
8. On February 12, 2013, NERC filed a petition (Petition) seeking
approval of the proposed interpretation of BAL-002-1, developed in
response to an interpretation request submitted on September 2, 2009 by
the Northwest Power Pool Reserve Sharing Group (NWPP). NERC explains
that NWPP requested clarification on the following matters:
(1) although a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single
Contingency must be reported by the Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group (as applicable), is the Disturbance excluded from
compliance evaluation for the applicable Balancing Authority or
Reserve Sharing Group;
(2) with respect to either simultaneous Contingencies or non-
simultaneous multiple Contingencies affecting a Reserve Sharing
Group, the exclusion from compliance evaluation for Disturbances
exceeding the most severe single Contingency applies both when
(a) all Contingencies occur within a single Balancing Authority
member of the Reserve Sharing Group, and
(b) different Balancing Authorities within the Reserve Sharing
Group experience separate Contingencies that occur simultaneously,
or non-simultaneously but before the end of the Disturbance Recovery
Period following the first Reportable Disturbance; and
(3) the meaning of the phrase ``excluded from compliance
evaluation'' as used in Section 1.4 (``Additional Compliance
Information'') of Part D of BAL-002-0 and for purposes of the
preceding statements is that, with respect to Disturbances that
exceed the most severe single Contingency for a Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group (as applicable), a violation of BAL-002-0
does not occur even if ACE is not recovered within the Disturbance
Recovery Period (15 minutes unless adjusted pursuant to BAL-002-0,
R4.2).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NERC Petition at 7.
9. A proposed interpretation was first balloted in February 2010,
but failed to achieve a two-third approval from the ballot body.\12\
NERC staff determined
[[Page 30247]]
that any further interpretation could not be developed unless the team
could consider the measures and the additional compliance elements of
the standard.\13\ In January 2012 NERC staff told the NWPP their
interpretation request was ``ineligible'' under the existing rules for
developing interpretations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NERC Petition, Exh. C (Summary of the Interpretation
Development Proceedings and Record of Development of Proposed
Interpretation) at 1-2.
\13\ Id. at 2. A November 2009 Resolution of the NERC Board that
pertained to interpretations included the following passage: ``[i]n
deciding whether or not to approve a proposed interpretation, the
board will use a standard of strict construction and not seek to
expand the reach of the standard to correct a perceived gap or
deficiency in the standard.''
\14\ NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. ISO/RTO Council appealed this decision, challenging the BAL-
002-1 interpretation process. In a March 2012 letter responding to ISO/
RTO Council, NERC staff stated: ``Given the difficulty in interpreting
the existing language of the standard, NERC recommends to the [ISO/RTO
Council] and NWPP that they consider developing and submitting a
Standard Authorization Request (SAR) to the Standards Committee to
address their concern.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. At its May 2012 meeting, the NERC Board Standards Oversight and
Technology Committee (SOTC) concluded that ``strict construction for
the purposes of interpretation was never meant to limit the materials
considered in developing the interpretation solely to the contents of
the requirements in a standard, but can include any language in the
standard, including compliance related sections.'' \16\ The NERC
Standards Committee assembled another drafting team that developed a
proposed interpretation that received a 90.34 percent approval vote in
October 2012. On November 7, 2012, the NERC BOT adopted the proposed
interpretation of BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In its Petition, NERC states that, in response to NWPP's first
question, the proposed interpretation clarifies that Balancing
Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups are not subject to the 15-minute
Disturbance Recovery Period for Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.
13. With regard to the second question, NERC explained that the
proposed interpretation provides that:
[t]he standard was written to provide pre-acknowledged RSG's the
same considerations as a single BA for purposes of exclusions from
DCS compliance evaluation . . . [T]his applies to both multiple
contingencies occurring within one minute or less of each other
being treated as a single Contingency or Contingencies that occur
after one minute of the start of a Reportable Disturbance but before
the end of the Disturbance Recovery Period.
The standard, while recognizing dynamically allocated RSGs, does
NOT provide the members of dynamically allocated RSGs exclusions
from DCS compliance evaluation on an RSG basis. For members of
dynamically allocated RSGs, the exclusions are provided only on a
member BA by member BA basis.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 14-15
14. In response to NWPP's third question regarding the exclusion
language in the Additional Compliance Information provision of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
standard, the drafting team responded:
The Additional Compliance Information section clearly states:
``Simultaneous contingencies--Multiple contingencies occurring
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the Most Severe Single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.''
Although Requirement R3 does mandate that a BA or RSG activate
sufficient Contingency Reserves to comply with DCS for every
Reportable Disturbance, there is no requirement to comply with or
even report disturbances that are below the Reportable Disturbance
level. The averaging obligation does incent calculation and
reporting of such lesser events. If a Balancing Authority were to
experience a Disturbance five times greater than its most severe
single Contingency, it would be required to report this Disturbance,
but would not be required to recover ACE within 15 minutes following
a Disturbance of this magnitude.
An excludable disturbance is a disturbance whose magnitude was
greater than the magnitude of the most severe single contingency.
Any other proposed interpretation would result in treating BAL-002-0
as if it required Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups
to recover ACE (to zero or pre-Disturbance levels, as applicable)
within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period without regard to
Disturbance magnitude. This is inconsistent with (a) the reserve
requirement specified in R3.1 of BAL-002-0, (b) the text of Section
1.4 of Part D of BAL-002-0, and (c) the documented history of the
development of BAL-002-0 . . .\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NERC Petition at 16.
15. NERC contends that BAL-002-1 is intended to be read as ``an
integrated whole'' and therefore uses the phrase ``excluded from
compliance evaluation'' that appears in Part D, Section 1.5
(``Additional Compliance Information'') as support for concluding that
the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period contained in Requirement R4
of BAL-002-1 does not apply to Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NERC Petition at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. NERC asserts that ``the proposed interpretation is necessary to
prevent Registered Entities from shedding load to avoid possible
violations of BAL-002, a result that is inconsistent with reliability
principles.'' \20\ NERC further asserts that ``[i]f the Reliability
Standard is interpreted to require that ACE be returned to zero even
for a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single Contingency, a
Balancing Authority could be required to take drastic operational
actions, even when other measures of system reliability (voltage
stability, normal frequency, operation within system operating limits,
etc.) indicate otherwise.'' NERC adds that ``a lack of clarity on the
interpretation of [BAL-002] potentially has significant financial and
operational impacts on all Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing
Groups.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id. at 3.
\21\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. NERC asserts that the proposed interpretation ``neither expands
on any Requirement nor explains how to comply with a Requirement.''
\22\ NERC acknowledges that the proposed interpretation differs from
the PacifiCorp Stipulation and Consent Agreement, in which NERC staff
and Commission staff determined that PacifiCorp violated BAL-002-0
Requirement R4 by failing to restore its ACE within the 15-minute
Disturbance Recovery Period, despite a Disturbance exceeding
PacifiCorp's MSSC.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Petition at 11 (citing NERC Standards Process Manual at
27).
\23\ NERC Petition at 16-17 (citing PacifiCorp, 137 FERC ]
61,176, at n.5 (2011) (PacifiCorp)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
18. We propose to remand NERC's interpretation of BAL-002-1 because
it fails to comport with the Commission-approved requirement that
interpretations can only clarify, not change, a Reliability
Standard.\24\ Rather, changes to a Reliability Standard must be
developed through NERC's standards development procedure as prescribed
in NERC's Rules of Procedure.\25\ As discussed below, NERC's proposed
interpretation changes Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1 from its plain
meaning, and also effectively redefines the term Reportable Disturbance
as defined in the NERC Glossary and used in BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NERC Standard Process Manual at 27 (``[a] valid
interpretation response provides additional clarity about one or
more Requirements, but does not expand on any Requirement . . .).
The Commission approved the NERC Standards Process Manual in North
American Electric Reliability Corp., 132 FERC ] 61,200.
\25\ NERC Standard Process Manual at 12-14 (explaining the
Standards Authorization Request process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. NERC's proposal interprets the phrase ``excluded from
compliance
[[Page 30248]]
evaluation,'' the exclusion language in Part D (Additional Compliance
Information), Section 1.5 of BAL-002-1 as limiting the obligation to
restore ACE set forth in Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1. As a result,
while Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1 provides that a Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group ``shall meet the Disturbance Recovery
Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery Period [i.e., 15 minutes] for
100 percent of Reportable Disturbances,'' the NERC interpretation
limits Requirement R4 as applicable to only some Reportable
Disturbances.
20. Stated differently, while the term ``Reportable Disturbance''
is defined by NERC as ``contingencies that are greater than or equal to
80% of the most severe single contingency,'' the NERC interpretation
changes the term to mean contingencies that are greater than or equal
to 80 percent of the most severe single contingency but no greater than
100 percent of the most severe single contingency.\26\ In sum, the
proposed interpretation would relieve a Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group from having to restore ACE within 15 minutes of
Disturbances that are greater than 100 percent of the most single
severe Contingency, notwithstanding that BAL-002-1 Requirement R4
requires that: ``[A] Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall
meet the Disturbance Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery
Period for 100% of Reportable Disturbances.'' Thus, NERC's proposal
goes beyond interpreting and, instead, changes a requirement of the
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Reliability Standard BAL-002-1, Section D. Compliance, 1.5
(Additional Compliance Information) defines ``Reportable
Disturbance'' as ``contingencies that are greater than or equal to
80% of the most severe single contingency.'' The definition of
``Reportable Disturbance'' in the NERC Glossary is ``[A]ny event
that causes an ACE change greater than or equal to 80% of a
Balancing Authority's or reserve sharing group's most severe
contingency.'' NERC's proposed interpretation is incompatible with
both definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. As mentioned above, NERC's proposed interpretation focuses on
the following provision in Part D, Section 1.5 (``Additional Compliance
Information'') of BAL-002-1:
Simultaneous Contingencies--Multiple Contingencies occurring
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies
exceeds the most severe single Contingency, the loss shall be
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.
NERC's proposal, however, is not adequately supported. NERC
interprets the exclusion language in the Additional Compliance
Information section as relieving Balancing Authorities or Reserve
Sharing Groups from having to comply with the ACE restoration
obligation in Requirement R4 for certain Disturbances. However, this
understanding is not supported by Requirement R4 or the Additional
Compliance Information section. Furthermore, NERC does not explain how
the proposed interpretation naturally flows from the existing
provision.
22. A more natural reading of the standard is that the exclusion
language in the Additional Compliance Information section applies to
the Levels of Non-Compliance section contained in BAL-002-1, Part D,
Section 2, which provides that:
Each Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group not meeting
the DCS during a calendar quarter shall increase its Contingency
Reserve obligation for the calendar quarter[hellip]following the
evaluation by the NERC or Compliance Monitor[hellip] The increase
shall be directly proportional to the non-compliance with the DCS in
the preceding quarter. This adjustment [hellip] is an additional
percentage of reserve needed beyond the most severe single
Contingency.''
This language indicates that each Balancing Authority or Reserve
Sharing Group is subject to a compliance evaluation conducted by ``the
NERC or Compliance Monitor'' to determine whether it has complied with
the Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) and, if the Balancing Authority
or Reserve Sharing Group has not complied, make a temporary upward
adjustment to its Contingency Reserve. The exclusion language in the
Additional Compliance Information section provides that, for multiple
contingency Disturbances, the Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing
Group must report the event, but may exclude it from the evaluation of
whether an upward adjustment in Contingency Reserves is warranted. NERC
does not explain why the exclusion language in the Additional
Compliance Information section applies to the ACE restoration
obligation in Requirement R4 rather than the reserve obligation review
process described in the Levels of Non-Compliance section of BAL-002-1.
Thus, while NERC advocates reading the Reliability Standard as ``an
integrated whole,''\27\ NERC's interpretation fails to address other
relevant language in BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ NERC Petition at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Accordingly, we propose to remand NERC's proposed
interpretation as an impermissible change to BAL-002-1 outside the
formal standards development process.\28\ The Petition goes beyond a
clarification by redefining key terms that would change the plain
language of a requirement. The Commission seeks comments on its
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Our proposal is based on the current wording of BAL-002-1
and does not prejudge the merits of any formal proposal by NERC to
replace to or change the wording of BAL-002-1. To the extent NERC
and its stakeholders have concerns with the requirements of BAL-002-
1, they may seek to address these concerns through the standards
development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Information Collection Statement
24. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\29\ The information contained here
is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
\30\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in letter
order RD10-15, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the
current rulemaking. This proposed rulemaking proposes to remand the
Interpretation of BAL-002-1. Accordingly, the proposed Commission
action would not affect the information reporting burden.
V. Environmental Analysis
26. 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.\31\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\32\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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).
\32\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \33\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed 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
[[Page 30249]]
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's Office of Size Standards develops the numerical
definition of a small business.\34\ For electric utilities, 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. The Commission does not expect
the proposed remand discussed herein to materially change the cost for
small entities to comply with BAL-002-1. Therefore, the Commission
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\34\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Comment Procedures
28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due July 8, 2013. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM13-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
29. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
VIII. Document Availability
32. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
33. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
34. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12131 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
