Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark; Order Approving Reliability Standard: North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 42064-42068 [2013-16805]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42064
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Notices
Additional Information
Additional information about the
project is available from the
Commission’s Office of External Affairs,
at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web
site at www.ferc.gov using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Click on the eLibrary
link, click on ‘‘General Search’’ and
enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits in the Docket Number
field (i.e., CP13–477). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov
or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or for
TTY, contact (202) 502–8659. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices,
and rulemakings.
In addition, the Commission now
offers a free service called eSubscription
which allows you to keep track of all
formal issuances and submittals in
specific dockets. This can reduce the
amount of time you spend researching
proceedings by automatically providing
you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links
to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.
Finally, public meetings or site visits
will be posted on the Commission’s
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/
EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.
Dated: July 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–16850 Filed 7–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RD13–3–000]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Before Commissioners: Jon
Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A.
LaFleur, and Tony Clark; Order
Approving Reliability Standard: North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation
1. On December 31, 2012, as amended
on January 4, 2013, the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
submitted a petition for approval of
Reliability Standard EOP–004–2—Event
Reporting (Petition). Reliability
Standard EOP–004–2 identifies types of
reportable events and thresholds for
reporting, requires responsible entities
to have an operating plan for reporting
applicable events to NERC and other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:55 Jul 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
entities (including law enforcement),
and requires reporting of threshold
events within a 24 hour period. NERC
requests that Reliability Standard EOP–
004–2 become effective the first day of
the first calendar quarter beginning six
months following the effective date of a
final order in this proceeding, and that
it replace currently-effective Reliability
Standards EOP–004–1—Disturbance
Reporting and CIP–001–2a—Sabotage
Reporting.
2. As explained below, pursuant to
section 215(d) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA),1 we approve Reliability Standard
EOP–004–2, and find that it is just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public
interest. We further approve NERC’s
requested effective date for EOP–004–2,
along with the retirement of existing
Reliability Standards EOP–004–1 and
CIP–001–2a.
I. Background
3. The Commission certified NERC as
the Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO), as defined in section 215 of the
FPA, in July 2006.2 In Order No. 693,
the Commission reviewed an initial set
of Reliability Standards as developed
and submitted for review by NERC, and
approved 83 standards as mandatory
and enforceable, including the
currently-effective Disturbance
Reporting Reliability Standard, EOP–
004–1.3
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission
also approved Reliability Standard CIP–
001–1—Sabotage Reporting. In addition,
the Commission directed that NERC
develop certain modifications to the
standard, to further define the term
sabotage and provide guidance on
triggering events, specify baseline
requirements for recognizing sabotage
events, incorporate periodic review of
sabotage reporting procedures, and
require that applicable entities contact
appropriate governmental authorities
within a specified time period.4
U.S.C. 824o(d) (2006).
American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118
FERC ¶ 61,190, order on reh’g 119 FERC ¶ 61,046
(2007), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d
1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
3 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 617, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–
A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
4 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 471. The Commission subsequently approved an
interpretation of CIP–001–1 (Letter Order issued on
Feb. 2, 2011 in Docket No. RR10–11–000, accepting
NERC’s clarification regarding the ‘‘appropriate
parties’’ to which reports of a sabotage event must
be made), as well as a regional modification to CIP–
001–1a (Letter Order issued on August 2, 2011 in
Docket RD11–6–000, approving a regional variance
PO 00000
1 16
2 North
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5. Project 2009–1—Disturbance and
Sabotage Reporting was initiated in
April 2009, by PJM Interconnection,
LLC, as a request for revision to existing
standard CIP–001–1.5 The standard
drafting team developed EOP–004–2,
Event Reporting, as a means of
combining the requirements of EOP–
004–1 and CIP–001 into a single
reporting standard.6
II. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
004–2 and NERC’s Petition
6. NERC explains in its Petition that
currently-effective Reliability Standard
EOP–004–1 contains the requirements
for reporting and analyzing
disturbances, while CIP–001–2a
addresses sabotage reporting. NERC
states that proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–004–2 merges EOP–004–1 and
CIP–001–2a, and represents a significant
improvement in the identification and
reporting of events.7 According to
NERC, proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–004–2 provides a comprehensive
approach to reporting disturbances and
events that have the potential to impact
the reliability of the bulk electric system
in accordance with several Commission
directives.8
7. As proposed, EOP–004–2 would
require the following:
• Responsible entities must have an
operating plan for reporting applicable
events to NERC and others (e.g.,
Regional Entities, applicable reliability
coordinators, and law enforcement),
including procedures for reporting the
specific events at thresholds identified
in Attachment 1 (Requirement R1);
• Responsible entities must report
events as defined in their operating plan
‘‘within 24 hours of recognition of
meeting an event type threshold for
reporting,’’ or by the end of the next
business day if the event occurs on a
weekend (Requirement R2); and
• Responsible entities must validate
contact information contained in the
operating plan on an annual basis
(Requirement R3).
8. Reliability Standard EOP–004–2
includes two attachments. Attachment 1
(Reportable Events) identifies types of
events and thresholds for reporting,
such as damage or destruction of a
facility, physical threats to facilities,
firm load loss, and generation loss.
Attachment 2 is a standardized form for
event reporting. NERC notes that in an
for ERCOT to add transmission owners and
generator owners as responsible entities). Thus, the
currently-effective version of the sabotage reporting
standard is CIP–001–2a.
5 NERC Petition at 7.
6 Id. at 8.
7 Id. at 5.
8 Id. at 3.
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Notices
effort to minimize administrative
burden, U.S. entities may elect to use
DOE Form OE–417 (Emergency Incident
and Disturbance Report), rather than
Attachment 2, to report under EOP–
004–2.9
9. NERC asserts that the results-based
approach of EOP–004–2 includes clear
criteria for reporting and consistent
reporting timelines. NERC also explains
that the proposed reporting
requirements will ‘‘allow governmental
authorities and critical infrastructure
members the opportunity to react in a
meaningful manner’’ to disturbance or
other event information, thereby
‘‘support[ing] reliability principles and
ultimately help[ing] to protect against
future malicious physical attacks.’’ 10
10. NERC notes, however, that the
revised Reliability Standard does not
further define the term ‘‘sabotage’’ as
directed in Order No. 693. NERC
explains that the standard drafting team
determined that such a definition could
be ambiguous and ‘‘inherently
subjective.’’ 11 NERC explains that the
standard drafting team elected instead
to develop a specific list of reportable
events and thresholds (Attachment 1 of
the standard), as a means of meeting the
Commission’s directive to provide
guidance on reportable events. NERC
asserts that the development of a list of
reportable events and thresholds is an
equally effective and efficient means of
addressing the Commission’s directive
in Order No. 693.12
III. Notice of Filing, Interventions and
Comments
11. Notices of NERC’s Petition and its
errata were issued on January 2 and
January 7, 2013, respectively, with
comments, protests and motions to
intervene due on or before February 4,
2013. American Municipal Power, Inc.
(AMP) filed a timely motion to
intervene, on January 30, 2013.
12. On March 7, 2013, seven
Independent System Operators and
Regional Transmission Organizations
(Joint ISOs/RTOs) filed a joint motion to
intervene out-of-time and comments on
NERC’s Petition.13 In support of their
request for leave to intervene out-oftime, Joint ISOs/RTOs maintain that
they only learned that a Notice of
9 Id.
at 16.
at 4.
11 Id. at 8–9.
12 Id. at 9.
13 Joint ISOs/RTOs are the California Independent
System Operator Corporation; Electric Reliability
Council of Texas, Inc.; Ontario’s Independent
Electricity System Operator; ISO New England Inc.;
Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.; New York Independent System
Operator, Inc.; and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:55 Jul 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
Proposed Rulemaking would not issue
in the docket after the January 30, 2013
close of the intervention and comment
period. Joint ISOs/RTOs maintain that
their late comments will not prejudice
NERC because ISOs and RTOs raised
similar comments during the standards
development process, and that late
intervention will not prejudice any
other party or otherwise disrupt this
proceeding as the Commission has not
yet issued a dispositive order.
13. Joint ISOs/RTOs assert that event
reporting does not provide for ‘‘reliable
operations’’ and, therefore, should not
be incorporated in mandatory
Reliability Standards. Joint ISOs/RTOs
contend that event reporting is ‘‘an ex
post activity’’ that provides only
prospective benefits to system
reliability.14 Joint ISOs/RTOs argue that
the Commission should ‘‘distinguish
between an obligation that is a
‘requirement . . . to provide for reliable
operation of the bulk-power system,’ as
those terms are defined in Section 215,
and those obligations that do not, such
as administrative record-keeping and
ex-post reporting tasks.’’ 15 Joint ISOs/
RTOs further maintain that the event
reporting requirements in EOP–004–2
are redundant to other federal
regulations, and that they expose
registered entities to unnecessary
liability and burden.16 Based on these
arguments, Joint ISOs/RTOs take the
position that the Commission should
not only reject EOP–004–2, but should
also consider retiring or otherwise
revisiting the existing Reliability
Standards governing disturbance and
sabotage reporting (EOP–004–1 and
CIP–001–2a).
14. Joint ISOs/RTOs argue, in the
alternative, that if the Commission
approves EOP–004–2, the Commission
should direct certain modifications.17 In
particular, Joint ISOs/RTOs advocate (1)
limiting reportable events ‘‘to those that
give third parties the opportunity to act
to mitigate the impact of the event’’
such as vandalism; 18 and (2) limiting
the scope of entities to receive reports
to those that can act to mitigate the
actual event. Joint ISOs/RTOs further
maintain that certain thresholds for
reportable events in Attachment 1
should be modified to remove
of Joint ISOs/RTOs at 6.
at 5 (quoting from FPA section 215).
16 See id. at 7.
17 Id. at 8–14. Joint ISOs/RTOs acknowledge that,
‘‘[i]f the Commission disagrees with the Joint ISOs/
RTOs’ position that event reporting should not be
included in the Reliability Standards . . ., proposed
standard EOP–004–2 is an improvement over the
two events reporting standards it would replace
. . . .’’ Id. at 8.
18 Id. at 9.
PO 00000
14 Comments
15 Id.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42065
ambiguities. Joint ISOs/RTOs provide
one example of such ambiguity,
claiming that, while Attachment 1
requires reporting when ‘‘[d]amage or
destruction of a Facility . . . results in
actions to avoid a BES emergency,’’
reliability coordinators and balancing
authorities take actions on a daily basis
to ‘‘avoid a BES Emergency’’ without
knowing whether the underlying system
conditions resulted from damage or
destruction to a facility. According to
Joint ISOs/RTOs, the reliability
coordinator or balancing authority will
often not have the information to
determine whether to submit a report.
Finally, Joint ISOs/RTOs assert that a
strict 24-hour reporting obligation is
overly-stringent and provides no
reliability benefit since registered
entities would have separately mitigated
the event.
IV. Discussion
A. Procedural Matters
15. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, the timely,
unopposed motion to intervene filed by
AMP serves to make it a party to this
proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 214(d) of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214(d) (2012),
we will also grant Joint ISOs/RTOs’ latefiled motion to intervene given their
interest in the proceeding, the early
stage of the proceeding, and the absence
of undue prejudice or delay.
B. Commission Determination
16. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the
FPA, we approve Reliability Standard
EOP–004–2 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest.19 We also
approve NERC’s proposed
implementation plan for the revised
standard, including the retirement of
existing Reliability Standards EOP–004–
1 and CIP–001–2a when EOP–004–2
becomes effective. Finally, we approve
the proposed violation risk factors and
violation severity levels incorporated in
Reliability Standard EOP–004–2.
17. We find that EOP–004–2 enhances
the reliability of the Bulk-Power System
by requiring timely reporting of specific
system disturbance or sabotage events,
allowing for both a real-time operational
benefit for near-term mitigation of the
event, as well as a prospective benefit
through subsequent analysis and
investigation, including dissemination
of lessons learned from the event. We
conclude that EOP–004–2 represents an
improvement over the currently19 16
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
15JYN1
42066
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
effective Reliability Standards, CIP–
001–2a and EOP–004–1, in that it
provides a comprehensive approach to
reporting disturbances and events that
have the potential to impact the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System and
provides greater clarity concerning
reportable events. Further, we find that
NERC has adequately addressed the
Commission’s directives pertaining to
event reporting, including requiring the
periodic update of reporting procedures.
With regard to the Order No. 693
directives that NERC further refine the
definition of ‘‘sabotage’’ and provide
guidance on events that trigger
reporting,20 we find that NERC’s
development of Attachment 1, which
lists specific types of reportable events
and thresholds for reporting, represents
an equally efficient and effective
approach to address our underlying
concern.
18. In addition, we are not persuaded
by Joint ISOs/RTOs’ arguments in
support of their request that we either
reject or direct modification of the
proposed standard.
19. First, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs’
argument that event reporting is not a
proper subject for Reliability Standards
because it is prospective in nature and
is not directly related to or otherwise
supportive of ‘‘reliable operations’’ as
that term is used in FPA section 215.
The prospective benefits from certain
aspects of the reporting requirements
are not only valuable, but also a
sufficient basis for imposition of a
mandatory and enforceable reliability
requirement. Events reporting allows
entities to gain an early understanding
of the scope of an event, enabling
requests for assistance from other
entities within the industry with
appropriate expertise and from other
governmental agencies who otherwise
might not know about the event. While
assistance would not always be in real
time, operational planning and system
planning can benefit from outside
expertise to support planning for
physical and cyber security, and even to
support and improve day-ahead and
week-ahead operational planning.
Moreover, patterns of simple events can
trigger further analysis and recognition
of the possibility that corrective
measures should be taken to prevent
even more egregious events that might
ensue if left unchecked.21
20 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 471.
21 We have previously approved Reliability
Standards that do not affect ‘‘real-time operations’’
yet still support the reliable operation of the BulkPower System, including Reliability Standards
within the several different transmission categories
including personnel performance, training and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:55 Jul 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
20. Moreover, EOP–004–2 has been
designed to minimize redundancies and
multiple reporting obligations to the
extent possible, by allowing responsible
entities to report an event either through
submission of its Attachment 2 or DOE
Form OE–417.22
21. Nor are we persuaded by Joint
ISOs/RTOs that EOP–004–2, if adopted,
requires modification. We find no
reason to require NERC to limit
reportable events to those that give third
parties time to act to mitigate the event,
or to limit the recipients of such reports
to those that can act to mitigate actual,
real-time events. It is unclear that such
events could be readily identified,
leading to greater confusion concerning
reporting requirements and a possible
loss of information about those
mitigable events. More importantly, as
noted above, we do not agree that FPA
section 215 limits the scope of
Reliability Standards to those that
directly affect real-time operations, and
therefore do not agree with the
underlying basis for Joint ISOs/RTOs’
proposed modification.
22. Further, based on the one example
provided by Joint ISOs/RTOs, we are
not persuaded that the triggering events
delineated in Attachment 1 require
clarification. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend
that, while Attachment 1 requires
reporting when ‘‘[d]amage or
destruction of a Facility . . . results in
actions to avoid a BES emergency,’’
reliability coordinators and balancing
authorities may take actions to avoid a
BES Emergency without knowing
whether the underlying system
conditions resulted from damage or
destruction to a facility. Requirement R2
of EOP–004–2 requires reporting of an
event ‘‘within 24 hours of recognition of
meeting an event type threshold. . . .’’
NERC explains that the language of
Requirement R2 is based on
‘‘recognition’’ of an event threshold
because ‘‘an entity may not be
immediately aware of destruction or
damage to a remote piece of equipment’’
and ‘‘requiring Responsible Entities to
constantly monitor all equipment and
property for destruction or damage
would be a waste of resources. . . .’’ 23
We agree that NERC has developed a
practical solution to reporting that,
rather than creating ambiguity, provides
a more clear and rational trigger for
reporting.
23. Finally, we reject Joint ISOs/
RTOs’ objection that the 24-hour
qualifications (PER); transmission planning (TPL);
and facility connection and coordination (FAC–001
and FAC–002).
22 See NERC Petition at 16.
23 NERC Petition at 13.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reporting window is too stringent. As
indicated by the Attachment 2
standardized Event Reporting Form,
entities are only required to provide
limited, specified information
pertaining to an event. No underlying
investigation or analysis is required. If
Joint ISOs/RTOs believe that
improvements can be made to EOP–
004–2, through clarifying language or
other modifications as the industry
gains experience with EOP–004–2’s
revised reporting requirements, they can
seek to do so through NERC’s standard
development process.
24. Accordingly, we approve
Reliability Standard EOP–004–2
pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), as we
find that it is just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. We also
approve the associated violation risk
factors and violation severity levels,
NERC’s requested effective date for
EOP–004–2, and the retirement of
existing Reliability Standards EOP–004–
1 and CIP–001–2a.
V. Information Collection Statement
25. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by
agency action.24 Upon approval of a
collection(s) of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and an
expiration date. Respondents subject to
the filing requirements of this Order
will not be penalized for failing to
respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB
control number.
26. The Commission will submit these
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and
approval under section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This order is
effective immediately; however, the
revised information collection
requirements will not be effective or
enforceable until OMB approves the
information collection changes
described in this order. Comments are
solicited within 60 days of the date this
order is published in the Federal
Register on the Commission’s need for
this information, whether the
information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of provided burden
estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected, and any suggested methods
for minimizing the respondent’s burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques. Submit
comments following the Commission’s
24 5
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
CFR 1320.11.
15JYN1
42067
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Notices
submission guidelines at https://
www.ferc.gov/help/submissionguide.asp and reference Docket No.
RD13–3.
27. Rather than creating entirely new
obligations to report a system
disturbance, the revised Reliability
Standard, EOP–004–2, primarily
clarifies the thresholds that can trigger
a reporting obligation, and reduces the
reporting burden for certain individual
respondents due to the use of a
simplified form in Attachment 2.
However, the revised Reliability
Standard would increase the reporting
burden for some individual entities,
because it would apply for the first time
to transmission owners and generator
owners. We do not anticipate a large
increase in the number of respondents
because the existing Reliability
Standard applies to transmission
operators and generator operators,
which includes the majority of the
entities registered as transmission
owners and generator owners.
28. Burden Estimate: Our estimate
below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC
compliance registry as of March 2013.
According to the registry, there are 7
transmission owners that are not also
transmission operators, 128 generator
owners that are not also generator
operators, and 101 distribution
providers that are not also registered as
another functional entity covered by the
current event reporting standards. Thus,
we estimate that a total of 236 entities
may be subject to the event reporting
requirements of EOP–004–2 for the first
time.25
29. The number of annual reports
required could vary widely based on the
individual entity and the extent of its
facilities. The estimate below is based
on an assumption that, on average, 25
percent of the entities covered by EOP–
004–2 will have one reportable event
per year. As demonstrated below, the
primary increase in cost associated with
the revised standard is expected in Year
1, when newly covered entities must
develop an operating plan for reporting.
In Years 2 and 3, an overall reduction
in reporting and recordkeeping burden
is expected, due to the simplified
reporting form:
Reporting/recordkeeping req’t
New Entities (GO,
TO, DP).
Entities Subject to
Existing Reporting Requirements.
Total for Year
1 26.
Total for each
of Years 2
& 3.
Number of
respondents
Number of
responses per
respondent
Total number
of responses
Average
burden hours
per response
Estimated total
annual burden
Estimated total
annual cost
(A)
Type of
respondent
(B)
(A) × (B) = (C)
(D)
(C) × (D)
(see below)
Developing Operating Plan (Yr 1
Only).
Reporting Event
(Yr 1, 2, and 3).
Conforming Operating Plan to
New Thresholds (Yr 1 Only).
Reporting Event
(using new
form) (Yrs 1, 2,
and 3).
236
1
236
8
1888
$113,280.00
59
1
59
0.17
10.03
601.80
1164
1
1164
2
2328
139,680.00
291
1
291
¥0.33
¥96.03
(5,761.80)
.............................
........................
........................
........................
........................
4,130
247,800
.............................
........................
........................
........................
........................
(81)
(5,160)
entities * 1 response/entity * (2
hours/response * $60/hour) =
$139,680.
Æ Current Responsible Entities, Event
Reporting Using New Event
Reporting Form: 291 entities * 1
response/entity * [(.17 hours/
response ¥ .5 hours/response) 28 *
$60/hour] = ($5,761.80).
• Year 2 and ongoing
Æ New Entities, Using ‘‘Event
Reporting Form’’: 59 entities * 1
response/entity * (.17 hours/
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The estimated breakdown of annual
cost is as follows:
• Year 1
Æ New Entities, Development of
Operating Plan: 236 entities * 1
response/entity * (8 hours/response
* $60/hour 27) = $113,280.
Æ New Entities, Event Reporting: 59
entities * 1 response/entity * (.17
hours/response * $60/hour) =
$601.80.
Æ Current Responsible Entities,
Conforming Operating Plan: 1164
25 Although distribution providers are included
as responsible entities under the revised Reliability
Standard, their reporting obligations will be de
minimis, as explained in the Guidelines and
Technical Basis attached to the revised standard.
See NERC Petition, Ex. B at 13. For purposes of this
analysis, however, we included distribution
providers as part of the assumed number of reports
per year.
26 Year 1 costs include implementation costs for
entities that must comply with the standard for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:55 Jul 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
first time, plus the cost for entities that are currently
subject to NERC event reporting requirements to
review and make changes to their existing plans.
The Year 1 total also includes the savings from the
reduction in reporting time due to the new Event
Reporting Form.
27 For the burden categories above, the estimated
hourly loaded cost (salary plus benefits) for an
engineer was assumed to be $60/hour, based on
salaries as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) (https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
Æ Old Entities, Using ‘‘Event
Reporting Form’’: 291 entities * 1
response/entity * [(.17 hours/
response ¥ .5 hours/response) *
$60/hour] = ($5,761.80).
Title: FERC–725A, Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power
System.
Action: Proposed collection of
information.
OMB Control No: 1902–0244.
Loaded costs are BLS rates divided by 0.703 and
rounded to the nearest dollar (https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
28 It is estimated that the average time to complete
the required event report under Reliability Standard
EOP–004–1 is 30 minutes, versus an estimated 10
minutes under the proposed Reliability Standard,
EOP–004–2.
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
42068
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Notices
Respondents: Business or other for
profit, and/or not for profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
Necessity of the Information:
Reliability Standard EOP–004–2
satisfies certain prior directives of the
Commission, including a requirement to
provide further guidance and specificity
about reportable incidents of sabotage.
The revised Reliability Standard
requires reporting of specified system
disturbances and potential events of
sabotage in a timely manner, thereby
allowing NERC as the Electric
Reliability Organization, governmental
authorities and relevant electric
industry entities the opportunity to
react. The revised standard accordingly
enhances reliability in real-time through
the opportunity to mitigate the impact
of a disturbance, and in the future
through investigation, analysis, and
dissemination of lessons learned.
30. 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, email:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (202)
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
VI. Effective Date
31. This order will become effective
upon issuance.
The Commission orders:
(A) Reliability Standard EOP–004–2 is
hereby approved as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory, and in the
public interest.
(B) NERC’s proposed Violation Risk
Factors and Violation Severity Levels
and implementation plan for Reliability
Standard EOP–004–2 are hereby
approved, including the retirement of
existing Reliability Standards EOP–004–
1 and CIP–001–2a when EOP–004–2
goes into effect.
Issued: June 20, 2013.
By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–16805 Filed 7–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RM98–1–000]
Records Governing Off-the-Record
Communications; Public Notice
This constitutes notice, in accordance
with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt
of prohibited and exempt off-the-record
communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222,
September 22, 1999) requires
Commission decisional employees, who
make or receive a prohibited or exempt
off-the-record communication relevant
to the merits of a contested proceeding,
to deliver to the Secretary of the
Commission, a copy of the
communication, if written, or a
summary of the substance of any oral
communication.
Prohibited communications are
included in a public, non-decisional file
associated with, but not a part of, the
decisional record of the proceeding.
Unless the Commission determines that
the prohibited communication and any
responses thereto should become a part
of the decisional record, the prohibited
Docket No.
Filed date
CP13–83–000 ...............................................................................
Exempt:
1. P–13590–000 ....................................................................
2. P–10808–000 ....................................................................
3. ER12–959–000 ..................................................................
4. P–10808–000 ....................................................................
5. P–10808–000 ....................................................................
6. CP09–30–000 ....................................................................
7. EC13–114–000 ..................................................................
1 Email
2 Email
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3 Email
off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in
reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to
respond to any facts or contentions
made in a prohibited off-the-record
communication, and may request that
the Commission place the prohibited
communication and responses thereto
in the decisional record. The
Commission will grant such a request
only when it determines that fairness so
requires. Any person identified below as
having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the
document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable
proceeding in accordance with Rule
2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record
communications are included in the
decisional record of the proceeding,
unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40
CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-therecord communications recently
received by the Secretary of the
Commission. The communications
listed are grouped chronologically, in
ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary
link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, please contact
FERC, Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll
free at (866)208–3676, or for TTY,
contact (202)502–8659.
Presenter or requester
06–10–13
Susan Thornton, Ph.D.1
05–28–13
06–17–13
06–18–13
06–18–13
06–27–13
07–03–13
07–08–13
FERC Staff.2
Hon. Sander Levin.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas.
Hon. Dave Camp.3
Hon. Dave Camp.
Hon. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen.
Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.
record.
records dated 5/28, 5/30 and 6/11/2013. Phone records dated 6/3 and 6/5/2013.
record.
Dated: July 9, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–16836 Filed 7–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:55 Jul 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42064-42068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16805]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RD13-3-000]
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark; Order
Approving Reliability Standard: North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
1. On December 31, 2012, as amended on January 4, 2013, the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition
for approval of Reliability Standard EOP-004-2--Event Reporting
(Petition). Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 identifies types of
reportable events and thresholds for reporting, requires responsible
entities to have an operating plan for reporting applicable events to
NERC and other entities (including law enforcement), and requires
reporting of threshold events within a 24 hour period. NERC requests
that Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 become effective the first day of
the first calendar quarter beginning six months following the effective
date of a final order in this proceeding, and that it replace
currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-004-1--Disturbance
Reporting and CIP-001-2a--Sabotage Reporting.
2. As explained below, pursuant to section 215(d) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA),\1\ we approve Reliability Standard EOP-004-2, and find
that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. We further approve NERC's requested
effective date for EOP-004-2, along with the retirement of existing
Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
3. The Commission certified NERC as the Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO), as defined in section 215 of the FPA, in July
2006.\2\ In Order No. 693, the Commission reviewed an initial set of
Reliability Standards as developed and submitted for review by NERC,
and approved 83 standards as mandatory and enforceable, including the
currently-effective Disturbance Reporting Reliability Standard, EOP-
004-1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on reh'g 119 FERC ]
61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
\3\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 617, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved Reliability
Standard CIP-001-1--Sabotage Reporting. In addition, the Commission
directed that NERC develop certain modifications to the standard, to
further define the term sabotage and provide guidance on triggering
events, specify baseline requirements for recognizing sabotage events,
incorporate periodic review of sabotage reporting procedures, and
require that applicable entities contact appropriate governmental
authorities within a specified time period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 471. The
Commission subsequently approved an interpretation of CIP-001-1
(Letter Order issued on Feb. 2, 2011 in Docket No. RR10-11-000,
accepting NERC's clarification regarding the ``appropriate parties''
to which reports of a sabotage event must be made), as well as a
regional modification to CIP-001-1a (Letter Order issued on August
2, 2011 in Docket RD11-6-000, approving a regional variance for
ERCOT to add transmission owners and generator owners as responsible
entities). Thus, the currently-effective version of the sabotage
reporting standard is CIP-001-2a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Project 2009-1--Disturbance and Sabotage Reporting was initiated
in April 2009, by PJM Interconnection, LLC, as a request for revision
to existing standard CIP-001-1.\5\ The standard drafting team developed
EOP-004-2, Event Reporting, as a means of combining the requirements of
EOP-004-1 and CIP-001 into a single reporting standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NERC Petition at 7.
\6\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 and NERC's Petition
6. NERC explains in its Petition that currently-effective
Reliability Standard EOP-004-1 contains the requirements for reporting
and analyzing disturbances, while CIP-001-2a addresses sabotage
reporting. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2
merges EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a, and represents a significant
improvement in the identification and reporting of events.\7\ According
to NERC, proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 provides a
comprehensive approach to reporting disturbances and events that have
the potential to impact the reliability of the bulk electric system in
accordance with several Commission directives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. at 5.
\8\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. As proposed, EOP-004-2 would require the following:
Responsible entities must have an operating plan for
reporting applicable events to NERC and others (e.g., Regional
Entities, applicable reliability coordinators, and law enforcement),
including procedures for reporting the specific events at thresholds
identified in Attachment 1 (Requirement R1);
Responsible entities must report events as defined in
their operating plan ``within 24 hours of recognition of meeting an
event type threshold for reporting,'' or by the end of the next
business day if the event occurs on a weekend (Requirement R2); and
Responsible entities must validate contact information
contained in the operating plan on an annual basis (Requirement R3).
8. Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 includes two attachments.
Attachment 1 (Reportable Events) identifies types of events and
thresholds for reporting, such as damage or destruction of a facility,
physical threats to facilities, firm load loss, and generation loss.
Attachment 2 is a standardized form for event reporting. NERC notes
that in an
[[Page 42065]]
effort to minimize administrative burden, U.S. entities may elect to
use DOE Form OE-417 (Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report), rather
than Attachment 2, to report under EOP-004-2.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NERC asserts that the results-based approach of EOP-004-2
includes clear criteria for reporting and consistent reporting
timelines. NERC also explains that the proposed reporting requirements
will ``allow governmental authorities and critical infrastructure
members the opportunity to react in a meaningful manner'' to
disturbance or other event information, thereby ``support[ing]
reliability principles and ultimately help[ing] to protect against
future malicious physical attacks.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. NERC notes, however, that the revised Reliability Standard does
not further define the term ``sabotage'' as directed in Order No. 693.
NERC explains that the standard drafting team determined that such a
definition could be ambiguous and ``inherently subjective.'' \11\ NERC
explains that the standard drafting team elected instead to develop a
specific list of reportable events and thresholds (Attachment 1 of the
standard), as a means of meeting the Commission's directive to provide
guidance on reportable events. NERC asserts that the development of a
list of reportable events and thresholds is an equally effective and
efficient means of addressing the Commission's directive in Order No.
693.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 8-9.
\12\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Notice of Filing, Interventions and Comments
11. Notices of NERC's Petition and its errata were issued on
January 2 and January 7, 2013, respectively, with comments, protests
and motions to intervene due on or before February 4, 2013. American
Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) filed a timely motion to intervene, on
January 30, 2013.
12. On March 7, 2013, seven Independent System Operators and
Regional Transmission Organizations (Joint ISOs/RTOs) filed a joint
motion to intervene out-of-time and comments on NERC's Petition.\13\ In
support of their request for leave to intervene out-of-time, Joint
ISOs/RTOs maintain that they only learned that a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking would not issue in the docket after the January 30, 2013
close of the intervention and comment period. Joint ISOs/RTOs maintain
that their late comments will not prejudice NERC because ISOs and RTOs
raised similar comments during the standards development process, and
that late intervention will not prejudice any other party or otherwise
disrupt this proceeding as the Commission has not yet issued a
dispositive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Joint ISOs/RTOs are the California Independent System
Operator Corporation; Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.;
Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator; ISO New England
Inc.; Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; New
York Independent System Operator, Inc.; and Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joint ISOs/RTOs assert that event reporting does not provide
for ``reliable operations'' and, therefore, should not be incorporated
in mandatory Reliability Standards. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend that event
reporting is ``an ex post activity'' that provides only prospective
benefits to system reliability.\14\ Joint ISOs/RTOs argue that the
Commission should ``distinguish between an obligation that is a
`requirement . . . to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power
system,' as those terms are defined in Section 215, and those
obligations that do not, such as administrative record-keeping and ex-
post reporting tasks.'' \15\ Joint ISOs/RTOs further maintain that the
event reporting requirements in EOP-004-2 are redundant to other
federal regulations, and that they expose registered entities to
unnecessary liability and burden.\16\ Based on these arguments, Joint
ISOs/RTOs take the position that the Commission should not only reject
EOP-004-2, but should also consider retiring or otherwise revisiting
the existing Reliability Standards governing disturbance and sabotage
reporting (EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Comments of Joint ISOs/RTOs at 6.
\15\ Id. at 5 (quoting from FPA section 215).
\16\ See id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Joint ISOs/RTOs argue, in the alternative, that if the
Commission approves EOP-004-2, the Commission should direct certain
modifications.\17\ In particular, Joint ISOs/RTOs advocate (1) limiting
reportable events ``to those that give third parties the opportunity to
act to mitigate the impact of the event'' such as vandalism; \18\ and
(2) limiting the scope of entities to receive reports to those that can
act to mitigate the actual event. Joint ISOs/RTOs further maintain that
certain thresholds for reportable events in Attachment 1 should be
modified to remove ambiguities. Joint ISOs/RTOs provide one example of
such ambiguity, claiming that, while Attachment 1 requires reporting
when ``[d]amage or destruction of a Facility . . . results in actions
to avoid a BES emergency,'' reliability coordinators and balancing
authorities take actions on a daily basis to ``avoid a BES Emergency''
without knowing whether the underlying system conditions resulted from
damage or destruction to a facility. According to Joint ISOs/RTOs, the
reliability coordinator or balancing authority will often not have the
information to determine whether to submit a report. Finally, Joint
ISOs/RTOs assert that a strict 24-hour reporting obligation is overly-
stringent and provides no reliability benefit since registered entities
would have separately mitigated the event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id. at 8-14. Joint ISOs/RTOs acknowledge that, ``[i]f the
Commission disagrees with the Joint ISOs/RTOs' position that event
reporting should not be included in the Reliability Standards . . .,
proposed standard EOP-004-2 is an improvement over the two events
reporting standards it would replace . . . .'' Id. at 8.
\18\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion
A. Procedural Matters
15. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, the timely, unopposed motion to intervene
filed by AMP serves to make it a party to this proceeding. Pursuant to
Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.214(d) (2012), we will also grant Joint ISOs/RTOs' late-filed
motion to intervene given their interest in the proceeding, the early
stage of the proceeding, and the absence of undue prejudice or delay.
B. Commission Determination
16. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we approve Reliability
Standard EOP-004-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.\19\ We also approve NERC's
proposed implementation plan for the revised standard, including the
retirement of existing Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a
when EOP-004-2 becomes effective. Finally, we approve the proposed
violation risk factors and violation severity levels incorporated in
Reliability Standard EOP-004-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. We find that EOP-004-2 enhances the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System by requiring timely reporting of specific system
disturbance or sabotage events, allowing for both a real-time
operational benefit for near-term mitigation of the event, as well as a
prospective benefit through subsequent analysis and investigation,
including dissemination of lessons learned from the event. We conclude
that EOP-004-2 represents an improvement over the currently-
[[Page 42066]]
effective Reliability Standards, CIP-001-2a and EOP-004-1, in that it
provides a comprehensive approach to reporting disturbances and events
that have the potential to impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System and provides greater clarity concerning reportable events.
Further, we find that NERC has adequately addressed the Commission's
directives pertaining to event reporting, including requiring the
periodic update of reporting procedures. With regard to the Order No.
693 directives that NERC further refine the definition of ``sabotage''
and provide guidance on events that trigger reporting,\20\ we find that
NERC's development of Attachment 1, which lists specific types of
reportable events and thresholds for reporting, represents an equally
efficient and effective approach to address our underlying concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. In addition, we are not persuaded by Joint ISOs/RTOs' arguments
in support of their request that we either reject or direct
modification of the proposed standard.
19. First, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs' argument that event reporting
is not a proper subject for Reliability Standards because it is
prospective in nature and is not directly related to or otherwise
supportive of ``reliable operations'' as that term is used in FPA
section 215. The prospective benefits from certain aspects of the
reporting requirements are not only valuable, but also a sufficient
basis for imposition of a mandatory and enforceable reliability
requirement. Events reporting allows entities to gain an early
understanding of the scope of an event, enabling requests for
assistance from other entities within the industry with appropriate
expertise and from other governmental agencies who otherwise might not
know about the event. While assistance would not always be in real
time, operational planning and system planning can benefit from outside
expertise to support planning for physical and cyber security, and even
to support and improve day-ahead and week-ahead operational planning.
Moreover, patterns of simple events can trigger further analysis and
recognition of the possibility that corrective measures should be taken
to prevent even more egregious events that might ensue if left
unchecked.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ We have previously approved Reliability Standards that do
not affect ``real-time operations'' yet still support the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System, including Reliability Standards
within the several different transmission categories including
personnel performance, training and qualifications (PER);
transmission planning (TPL); and facility connection and
coordination (FAC-001 and FAC-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Moreover, EOP-004-2 has been designed to minimize redundancies
and multiple reporting obligations to the extent possible, by allowing
responsible entities to report an event either through submission of
its Attachment 2 or DOE Form OE-417.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See NERC Petition at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Nor are we persuaded by Joint ISOs/RTOs that EOP-004-2, if
adopted, requires modification. We find no reason to require NERC to
limit reportable events to those that give third parties time to act to
mitigate the event, or to limit the recipients of such reports to those
that can act to mitigate actual, real-time events. It is unclear that
such events could be readily identified, leading to greater confusion
concerning reporting requirements and a possible loss of information
about those mitigable events. More importantly, as noted above, we do
not agree that FPA section 215 limits the scope of Reliability
Standards to those that directly affect real-time operations, and
therefore do not agree with the underlying basis for Joint ISOs/RTOs'
proposed modification.
22. Further, based on the one example provided by Joint ISOs/RTOs,
we are not persuaded that the triggering events delineated in
Attachment 1 require clarification. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend that, while
Attachment 1 requires reporting when ``[d]amage or destruction of a
Facility . . . results in actions to avoid a BES emergency,''
reliability coordinators and balancing authorities may take actions to
avoid a BES Emergency without knowing whether the underlying system
conditions resulted from damage or destruction to a facility.
Requirement R2 of EOP-004-2 requires reporting of an event ``within 24
hours of recognition of meeting an event type threshold. . . .'' NERC
explains that the language of Requirement R2 is based on
``recognition'' of an event threshold because ``an entity may not be
immediately aware of destruction or damage to a remote piece of
equipment'' and ``requiring Responsible Entities to constantly monitor
all equipment and property for destruction or damage would be a waste
of resources. . . .'' \23\ We agree that NERC has developed a practical
solution to reporting that, rather than creating ambiguity, provides a
more clear and rational trigger for reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NERC Petition at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Finally, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs' objection that the 24-hour
reporting window is too stringent. As indicated by the Attachment 2
standardized Event Reporting Form, entities are only required to
provide limited, specified information pertaining to an event. No
underlying investigation or analysis is required. If Joint ISOs/RTOs
believe that improvements can be made to EOP-004-2, through clarifying
language or other modifications as the industry gains experience with
EOP-004-2's revised reporting requirements, they can seek to do so
through NERC's standard development process.
24. Accordingly, we approve Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 pursuant
to FPA section 215(d)(2), as we find that it is just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We
also approve the associated violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, NERC's requested effective date for EOP-004-2, and the
retirement of existing Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a.
V. Information Collection Statement
25. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency action.\24\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of this Order will not be penalized
for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. The Commission will submit these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This order is effective immediately;
however, the revised information collection requirements will not be
effective or enforceable until OMB approves the information collection
changes described in this order. Comments are solicited within 60 days
of the date this order is published in the Federal Register on the
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's
burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Submit
comments following the Commission's
[[Page 42067]]
submission guidelines at https://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp
and reference Docket No. RD13-3.
27. Rather than creating entirely new obligations to report a
system disturbance, the revised Reliability Standard, EOP-004-2,
primarily clarifies the thresholds that can trigger a reporting
obligation, and reduces the reporting burden for certain individual
respondents due to the use of a simplified form in Attachment 2.
However, the revised Reliability Standard would increase the reporting
burden for some individual entities, because it would apply for the
first time to transmission owners and generator owners. We do not
anticipate a large increase in the number of respondents because the
existing Reliability Standard applies to transmission operators and
generator operators, which includes the majority of the entities
registered as transmission owners and generator owners.
28. Burden Estimate: Our estimate below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of March 2013.
According to the registry, there are 7 transmission owners that are not
also transmission operators, 128 generator owners that are not also
generator operators, and 101 distribution providers that are not also
registered as another functional entity covered by the current event
reporting standards. Thus, we estimate that a total of 236 entities may
be subject to the event reporting requirements of EOP-004-2 for the
first time.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Although distribution providers are included as responsible
entities under the revised Reliability Standard, their reporting
obligations will be de minimis, as explained in the Guidelines and
Technical Basis attached to the revised standard. See NERC Petition,
Ex. B at 13. For purposes of this analysis, however, we included
distribution providers as part of the assumed number of reports per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. The number of annual reports required could vary widely based
on the individual entity and the extent of its facilities. The estimate
below is based on an assumption that, on average, 25 percent of the
entities covered by EOP-004-2 will have one reportable event per year.
As demonstrated below, the primary increase in cost associated with the
revised standard is expected in Year 1, when newly covered entities
must develop an operating plan for reporting. In Years 2 and 3, an
overall reduction in reporting and recordkeeping burden is expected,
due to the simplified reporting form:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Year 1 costs include implementation costs for entities that
must comply with the standard for the first time, plus the cost for
entities that are currently subject to NERC event reporting
requirements to review and make changes to their existing plans. The
Year 1 total also includes the savings from the reduction in
reporting time due to the new Event Reporting Form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average
Type of respondent Reporting/ Number of responses per Total number burden hours Estimated total Estimated total
recordkeeping req't respondents respondent of responses per response annual burden annual cost
................... (A) (B) (A) x (B) = (D) (C) x (D)(see below)
(C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Entities (GO, TO, DP)........ Developing 236 1 236 8 1888 $113,280.00
Operating Plan (Yr
1 Only).
Reporting Event (Yr 59 1 59 0.17 10.03 601.80
1, 2, and 3).
Entities Subject to Existing Conforming 1164 1 1164 2 2328 139,680.00
Reporting Requirements. Operating Plan to
New Thresholds (Yr
1 Only).
Reporting Event 291 1 291 -0.33 -96.03 (5,761.80)
(using new form)
(Yrs 1, 2, and 3).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for Year 1 \26\........ ................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 4,130 247,800
Total for each of Years 2 & 3 ................... .............. .............. .............. .............. (81) (5,160)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated breakdown of annual cost is as follows:
Year 1
[cir] New Entities, Development of Operating Plan: 236 entities * 1
response/entity * (8 hours/response * $60/hour \27\) = $113,280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For the burden categories above, the estimated hourly
loaded cost (salary plus benefits) for an engineer was assumed to be
$60/hour, based on salaries as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) (https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). Loaded
costs are BLS rates divided by 0.703 and rounded to the nearest
dollar (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] New Entities, Event Reporting: 59 entities * 1 response/
entity * (.17 hours/response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
[cir] Current Responsible Entities, Conforming Operating Plan: 1164
entities * 1 response/entity * (2 hours/response * $60/hour) =
$139,680.
[cir] Current Responsible Entities, Event Reporting Using New Event
Reporting Form: 291 entities * 1 response/entity * [(.17 hours/response
- .5 hours/response) \28\ * $60/hour] = ($5,761.80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ It is estimated that the average time to complete the
required event report under Reliability Standard EOP-004-1 is 30
minutes, versus an estimated 10 minutes under the proposed
Reliability Standard, EOP-004-2.
Year 2 and ongoing
[cir] New Entities, Using ``Event Reporting Form'': 59 entities * 1
response/entity * (.17 hours/response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
[cir] Old Entities, Using ``Event Reporting Form'': 291 entities *
1 response/entity * [(.17 hours/response - .5 hours/response) * $60/
hour] = ($5,761.80).
Title: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System.
Action: Proposed collection of information.
OMB Control No: 1902-0244.
[[Page 42068]]
Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard EOP-004-2
satisfies certain prior directives of the Commission, including a
requirement to provide further guidance and specificity about
reportable incidents of sabotage. The revised Reliability Standard
requires reporting of specified system disturbances and potential
events of sabotage in a timely manner, thereby allowing NERC as the
Electric Reliability Organization, governmental authorities and
relevant electric industry entities the opportunity to react. The
revised standard accordingly enhances reliability in real-time through
the opportunity to mitigate the impact of a disturbance, and in the
future through investigation, analysis, and dissemination of lessons
learned.
30. 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, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (202)
502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
VI. Effective Date
31. This order will become effective upon issuance.
The Commission orders:
(A) Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 is hereby approved as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory, and in the public interest.
(B) NERC's proposed Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity
Levels and implementation plan for Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 are
hereby approved, including the retirement of existing Reliability
Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a when EOP-004-2 goes into effect.
Issued: June 20, 2013.
By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16805 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
