Communications Reliability Standards, 22385-22395 [2015-09225]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES rates are just and reasonable and protect natural gas consumers from excessive costs 129. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the guidance in the Policy Statement and has determined that the information is necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission’s plan for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 130. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 131. Comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimate should be sent the Commission by June 22, 2015. IV. Document Availability 132. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC’s Home Page (https:// www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 133. From FERC’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 134. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or 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. V. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 135. This Policy Statement will become effective October 1, 2015. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 The Commission orders: The Commission adopts the Policy Statement and supporting analysis contained in the body of this order. Xcel Energy Companies By the Commission. Issued: April 16, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 22385 18 CFR Part 40 [FR Doc. 2015–09226 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM14–13–000; Order No. 808] Appendix—List of Commenters American Forest & Paper Association American Gas Association American Midstream, LLC American Public Gas Association Beatrice Gahman Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP Calpine Corporation Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. Clean Air Task Force Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Deep Gulf Energy LP El Paso Municipal Customer Group Elizabeth Balogh Energy XXI Ltd. Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation Law Foundation and the Sustainable FERC Project Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary. United States Department of Energy Fairfax Hutter Helis Oil and Gas Company, L.L.C. Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia, Inc. Independent Petroleum Association of America Indicated Shippers Industrial Energy Consumers of America Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Kansas Corporation Commission Karen Feridum Kinder Morgan Interstate Pipelines Laura Pritchard Michigan Public Service Commission Missouri Public Service Commission Municipal Defense Group Natural Gas Supply Association New York Public Service Commission Norman W. Torkelson North Carolina Utilities Commission Patriots Energy Group Pipeline Safety Coalition Process Gas Consumers Group and the American Forest & Paper Association Secretary of Energy Southern Company Services Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. Tenneesse Valley Authority Teresa Ecker The Laclede Group, Inc. U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. Western Tennessee Municipal Group Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Gas LLC PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Communications Reliability Standards Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission approves two revised Reliability Standards, COM– 001–2 (Communications) and COM– 002–4 (Operating Personnel Communications Protocols), developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The two revised Reliability Standards will enhance reliability by, among other things, requiring adoption of predefined communication protocols, annual assessment of those protocols and operating personnel’s adherence thereto, training on the protocols, and use of three-part communications. In addition, the Commission directs NERC to develop a modification to Reliability Standard COM–001–2 that addresses internal communications capabilities that could involve the issuance or receipt of Operating Instructions or other communications that could have an impact on reliability. DATES: This rule will become effective June 22, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Le (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6204, Vincent.le@ferc.gov. Michael Gandolfo (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6817, Michael.gandolfo@ferc.gov. Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6362, julie.greenisen@ ferc.gov. SUMMARY: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 22386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Order No. 808 Final Rule 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission approves two Reliability Standards, COM–001–2 (Communications) and COM–002–4 (Operating Personnel Communications Protocols), developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The Commission also approves three new defined terms for addition to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), violation risk factors, violation severity levels, and NERC’s proposed implementation plan for both revised standards. Further, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directs that NERC develop one modification to Reliability Standard COM–001–2 that addresses internal communications capabilities to the extent that such communications could involve the issuance or receipt of Operating Instructions or other communications that could have an impact on reliability. 2. Reliability Standard COM–001–2 is intended to establish a clear set of requirements for the communications capabilities that applicable functional entities must have in place and maintain. Reliability Standard COM– 002–4 requires applicable entities to develop communication protocols with certain minimum requirements, including use of three-part communication when issuing Operating Instructions.2 Reliability Standard COM–002–4 also sets out certain communications training requirements for all issuers and recipients of Operating Instructions, and establishes a flexible enforcement approach for failure to use three-part communication during non-emergencies and a ‘‘zerotolerance,’’ i.e., without exception, enforcement approach for failure to use three-part communication during an emergency.3 3. We find that Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and COM–002–4 will enhance reliability over the currentlyeffective versions of these Communications (COM) standards in several respects. For example, the Reliability Standards as modified expand applicability to include generator operators and distribution providers, eliminate certain ambiguities in the currently-effective standards, and clarify that the use of three-part communication is required for issuance and receipt of all Operating Instructions, with a zero-tolerance approach to enforcement of that requirement during an emergency. However, we are not persuaded that COM–001–2 adequately covers all situations in which Operating Instructions are issued or received and, therefore, direct NERC to develop a modification to that standard that addresses our concern, as further discussed below. I. Background A. Regulatory Background 4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.4 Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.5 In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.6 5. The Commission approved Reliability Standard COM–001–1 in Order No. 693.7 In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to COM–001–1 to: (1) expand the applicability of the standard to include generator operators and distribution providers, (2) identify specific requirements for telecommunications facilities for use in normal and emergency conditions that reflect the roles of the applicable entities, and (3) include adequate flexibility for compliance to allow for the adoption of new technologies and cost-effective solutions.8 Similarly, the Commission approved Reliability Standard COM–002–2 in Order No. 693. 4 16 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 1 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012). 2 NERC proposes to define Operating Instruction as ‘‘[a] command by operating personnel responsible for the Real-time operation of the interconnected Bulk Electric System to change or preserve the state, status, output, or input of an Element of the Bulk Electric System or Facility of the Bulk Electric System. (A discussion of general information and of potential options or alternatives . . . is not considered an Operating Instruction.).’’ 3 See NERC Petition at 3 (‘‘during Emergencies, operating personnel must use the documented communication protocols for three-part communications without exception.’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d). id. at 824o(e). 6 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 7 See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 508, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007); see also North American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD09–2–000 (2009) (delegated letter order accepting Reliability Standard COM–001–1.1). 8 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 508. 5 See PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to (1) include distribution providers as applicable entities, and (2) establish tightened communications protocols, especially for communications during alerts and emergencies.9 6. NERC initiated Project 2006–06 to address the Order No. 693 directives related to Reliability Standards COM– 001 and COM–002, resulting in two proposed Reliability Standards, COM– 001–2 and COM–002–3. NERC also initiated Project 2007–02 to develop a new Reliability Standard (COM–003) that would require real-time system operators to use standardized communication protocols during normal and emergency operations, in order to improve situational awareness and shorten response time. The two projects ultimately merged when drafts of Reliability Standard COM–002–3 and COM–003–1 were combined into a single proposed Reliability Standard, COM–002–4. B. NERC Petition 7. On May 14, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of two revised communication standards, COM–001–2 (Communications) and COM–002–4 (Operating Personnel Communications Protocols).10 Proposed Reliability Standard COM–001–2 establishes a set of requirements for the communications capabilities that various functional entities must maintain to enable communications with other identified functional entities. Proposed Reliability Standard COM–002–4 requires applicable entities to develop documented communications protocols. NERC stated in its petition that the proposed standards are intended to address all relevant Commission directives from Order No. 693. In addition, NERC stated that the revisions reflected in proposed COM–002–4 are intended to address Recommendation No. 26 from the final report on the August 2003 blackout issued by the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (Blackout Report) concerning the need to ‘‘[t]ighten communications protocols, especially for communications during alerts and emergencies.’’ 11 9 Id. PP 531–535, 540. COM Reliability Standards are not attached to the Final Rule. The complete text of the two Reliability Standards is available on the Commission’s eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM14–13 and is posted on the ERO’s Web site, available at: https://www.nerc.com. 11 NERC Petition at 3 (quoting U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations at 3 (April 2004) (Blackout Report), available at https:// 10 The E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Reliability Standard COM–001–2 8. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM–001–2 establishes requirements for Interpersonal Communication capabilities necessary to maintain reliability. NERC explained that proposed Reliability Standard COM– 001–2 applies to reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators, generator operators, and distribution providers. The proposed Reliability Standard includes eleven requirements and two new defined terms, ‘‘Interpersonal Communication’’ and ‘‘Alternative Interpersonal Communication,’’ that, according to NERC, collectively provide a comprehensive approach to establishing communications capabilities necessary to maintain reliability.12 NERC stated that the definitions provide clarity that an entity’s communication capability must be redundant and that each of the capabilities must not utilize the same medium. According to NERC, the definitions improve the language used in the current Reliability Standard by eliminating the use of the more ambiguous phrases ‘‘adequate and reliable’’ and ‘‘redundant and diversely routed’’ that relate to ‘‘telecommunications facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information.’’ 13 9. The first six requirements of COM– 001–2 address the Interpersonal Communication capability and Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability of the reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority functions. Requirement R1 requires each reliability coordinator to have Interpersonal Communication capability with all transmission operators and balancing authorities within its reliability coordinator area, and with each adjacent reliability coordinator within the same interconnection. Requirement R2 requires each reliability coordinator to designate Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability with those same identified entities. Requirements R3 and R4 set out the communications capability requirements for a transmission energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/ DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf). 12 Id. at 15. NERC defines Interpersonal Communication as ‘‘[a]ny medium that allows two or more individuals to interact, consult, or exchange information’’ and Alternative Interpersonal Communication as ‘‘[a]ny Interpersonal Communication that is able to serve as a substitute for, and does not utilize the same infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal Communication used for day-to-day operation.’’ Id. 13 Id. at 15–16. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 operator. Under Requirement R3, Interpersonal Communication capability is required between the transmission operator’s reliability coordinator, each balancing authority within its transmission operator area, each distribution provider and generator operator within its transmission operator area, and each adjacent transmission operator whether synchronously or asynchronously connected. Under Requirement R4, Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability must be designated between the transmission operator’s reliability coordinator, each balancing authority within its transmission operator area, and each adjacent transmission operator. Requirements R5 and R6 set out similar requirements for each balancing authority, again identifying the specific functional entities for which the balancing authority must maintain Interpersonal Communication capability and for which it must designate Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability. 10. Requirements R7 and R8 address the communications capability that distribution providers and generator operators must maintain, with each required to have Interpersonal Communications capability with its balancing authority and its transmission operator. 11. Requirement R9 requires each reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority to test its Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability at least once each calendar month, and to initiate action to repair or designate a replacement if the test is unsuccessful. Requirement R10 requires the same entities to notify applicable entities (as identified in R1, R3 and R5) of the detection of an Interpersonal Communication capability failure that lasts 30 minutes or longer. Finally, Requirement R11 requires distribution providers and generator operators to consult with affected balancing authorities and transmission operators when a failure is detected in their Interpersonal Communication capability, and to determine a mutually agreeable action for the restoration of that capability. 12. NERC stated in its petition that proposed Reliability Standard COM– 001–2 improves the currently-effective Reliability Standard by: (1) Eliminating terms that do not adequately specify the desired actions that applicable entities are expected to take in relation to their telecommunication facilities; (2) clearly identifying the need for applicable entities to be capable of Interpersonal PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22387 Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication; (3) not requiring specific technology or systems to be utilized; and (4) including the distribution provider and generator operator as applicable entities.14 NERC added that COM–001–2 also addresses relevant directives from Order No. 693 by (1) adding generator operators and distribution providers as applicable entities; (2) identifying specific requirements for telecommunications capabilities for use in all operating conditions that reflect the roles of the applicable entities and their impact on reliability; and (3) including adequate flexibility to permit the adoption of new technologies. 13. NERC proposed to retire currentlyeffective COM–001–1.1 when proposed Reliability Standard COM–001–2 becomes effective, with the exception of Requirement R4, which addresses communications protocols. NERC requested that Requirement R4 be retired when proposed Reliability Standard COM–002–4 becomes effective.15 Reliability Standard COM–002–4 14. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM–002–4 improves communications surrounding the issuance of Operating Instructions by requiring the use of predefined communications protocols to reduce the possibility of miscommunication that could lead to action or inaction harmful to reliability.16 NERC noted that the proposed standard requires use of the same protocols regardless of operating condition (i.e., Emergency or nonemergency), but requires operating personnel to use the documented communication protocols for three-part communications ‘‘without exception’’ during an Emergency.17 As NERC explained: [T]he proposed Reliability Standard employs the phrase ‘‘Operating Instruction during an Emergency’’ in certain 14 NERC Petition at 18. at 22. 16 Id. at 23. NERC stated that COM–002–3 (which was adopted by the NERC Board but not submitted to the Commission for approval) is proposed for retirement in the Implementation Plan because the proposed Reliability Standard has been combined with proposed COM–003–1 to create proposed Reliability Standard COM–002–4. NERC stated that Reliability Standard COM–002–3 has not been submitted to the Commission for approval, therefore, the currently effective version of COM– 002 is COM–002–2. Id. at 23 n.43. Reliability Standard COM–002–4 combines proposed Reliability Standard COM–002–3 and the former draft COM–003–1 into a single standard that addresses communications protocols for operating personnel in Emergency and non-emergency conditions. Id. at 23–24. 17 Id. at 3. 15 Id. E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 22388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES requirements (R5, R6, R7) to provide a demarcation for what is subject to a zerotolerance compliance approach and what is not.18 NERC explained that, for Operating Instructions issued during nonemergency operations, ‘‘an entity will be assessed under a compliance approach that focuses on whether an entity meets the initial training Requirement (either R2 or R3) and whether an entity performed the assessment and took corrective actions according to Requirement R4.’’ 19 15. Finally, NERC stated that the proposed Reliability Standard includes distribution providers and generator operators as applicable entities, in accordance with the Commission’s directive in Order No. 693, and in recognition of the fact that these types of entities can be recipients of Operating Instructions. 16. Proposed Reliability Standard COM–002–4 includes seven requirements. Requirement R1 requires entities that can both issue and receive Operating Instructions (balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators) to have documented communications protocols that include a minimum set of elements, including use of the English language unless otherwise specified, and required use of three-part communications for issuance and receipt of Operating Instructions.20 Requirement R2 requires these same entities to conduct initial training on the communications protocols for each of their operating personnel responsible for the real-time operation of the bulk electric system. Requirement R3 requires distribution providers and generator operators (who generally only receive but do not issue Operating Instructions) to conduct initial training on three-part communication for each of their operating personnel who can receive an oral two-party, person-to-person Operating Instruction, prior to that individual operator receiving an oral two-party, person-to-person Operating Instruction. 17. Requirement R4 requires each balancing authority, reliability coordinator and transmission operator to assess, at least once every twelve months, its operating personnel’s adherence to the documented communication protocols required in Requirement R1, and to provide feedback to its operating personnel on their performance. at 25. 19 Id. at 26. 20 See id. at 29. 18. Requirement R5 requires balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators that issue an oral two-party, person-toperson ‘‘Operating Instruction during an Emergency’’ to use three-part communication, and to take an alternative action if a confirmation is not received. Requirement R6 requires all applicable entities (balancing authorities, distribution providers, generator operators, and transmission operators) that receive an oral two-party, person-to-person ‘‘Operating Instruction during an Emergency’’ to use three-part communication, i.e., to repeat the Operating Instruction and receive confirmation from the issuer that the response was correct, or request that the issuer reissue the Operating Instruction. Both Requirement R5 and R6 include the clarification that the requirement does not apply to single-party to multiple-party ‘‘burst’’ Operating Instructions. As noted above, NERC explains that Requirements R5 and R6 require use of three-part communication during an Emergency without exception, because ‘‘use of three-part communication is critically important if an Emergency condition already exists, as further action or inaction could increase the harmful effects to the Bulk Electric System.’’ 21 NERC further explains, however, that applicable entities are expected to use three-part communications at all times when issuing and receiving Operating Instructions.22 19. Finally, Requirement R7 requires that when a balancing authority, reliability coordinator, or transmission operator issues a written or oral singleparty to multiple-party ‘‘burst’’ Operating Instruction during an Emergency, they must confirm or verify that at least one receiver received the Operating Instruction. 20. NERC requested that proposed Reliability Standard COM–002–4 become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is twelve months after the date that the standard is approved. C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 21. On September 19, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and COM–002– 4 pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), along with the three new definitions referenced in the proposed standards (Operating Instruction, Interpersonal Communication, and Alternative 18 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21 Id. 22 Id. 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 at 39. at 25–26. Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Interpersonal Communication), the assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels, and the proposed implementation plan for each standard.23 22. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the two revised standards addressed outstanding directives from Order No. 693, in that COM–001–2 has been expanded to include distribution providers and generator operators, and COM–002–4 has been expanded to include distribution providers.24 The Commission also stated that Reliability Standard COM–002–4 would enhance reliability by providing for improved communications through the required development of communication protocols. 23. In the NOPR, the Commission also discussed the following specific matters and asked for further comment: (1) Responsibility for use of three-part communication by transmission owners and generator owners that receive Operator Instructions; (2) whether COM–001–2 should be modified to address internal communication capability requirements, or to address testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators; and (3) clarifications regarding the proposed terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication. 24. Timely comments on the NOPR were filed by: NERC; the Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Supply Association (EEI/EPSA); ISO/RTO Council; the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA); International Transmission Company (ITC); Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power); and Tri-State G&T. In addition, on March 6, 2015, NERC filed Supplemental Comments. II. Discussion 25. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt our NOPR proposal and approve Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and COM–002–4, including the associated definitions, violation risk factors, violation severity levels, and implementation plans, as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. We note that all of the commenters that addressed the overall value of the Reliability Standards supported, or did not oppose, approval of the two revised standards. We determine that COM–001–2 will enhance reliability by expanding the 23 Communications Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 58709 (Sept. 30, 2014), 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 (2014) (NOPR). 24 Id. PP 22, 23. E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES applicability of currently effective COM–001–1.1 to include generator operators and distribution providers as applicable entities under the COM–001 standard, and by expanding the applicability of COM–002–4 to include distribution providers. We further find that COM–002–4 will enhance reliability by requiring all issuers and recipients of Operating Instructions to develop communications protocols that require use of three-part communications, by requiring training on those protocols, and by adopting a zero-tolerance enforcement approach to the use of three-part communications during an Emergency. Moreover, we conclude that requiring issuers of Operating Instructions to perform an annual assessment of their personnel’s adherence to the communications protocols will help ensure a high level of compliance with three-part communications at all times. 26. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directs that NERC develop one modification to COM–001–2 to address our concerns regarding applicability to certain internal communications, as discussed below. 27. Below, we discuss the following matters: (A) Ensuring use of three-part communications by generator owners and transmission owners; (B) internal communication capability requirements; (C) testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators; and (D) scope of the terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication. A. Applicability to Generator Owners and Transmission Owners NOPR 28. In the NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that generator owners and transmission owners are not ‘‘applicable entities’’ under either COM–001–2 or COM–002–4, although these entities could, under some circumstances, receive and act on Operating Instructions.25 The Commission sought comment on the obligations of an applicable entity when issuing an Operating Instruction to a transmission owner or generator owner, including information regarding which entity is responsible if the transmission owner or generator owner fails to perform three-part communication properly. In addition, the Commission asked NERC to explain its auditing practices when reviewing operating agreements between transmission operators and transmission owners, and between generator operators and generation owners, including NERC’s 25 See id. PP 25–27. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 approach to reviewing the protocols of any transmission owner or generator owner that acts on an Operating Instruction in order to ensure that threepart communication is used appropriately. Comments 29. All commenters that address this issue maintain that the two revised COM Reliability Standards appropriately identify the entities that issue and/or receive Operating Instructions, and that the two standards should not be expanded to include transmission owners or generator owners.26 NERC states that the two COM standards are appropriately tailored to apply to those functional entities that operate the Bulk-Power System as described in the NERC Functional Model and, therefore, apply to transmission operators and generator operators rather than transmission owners and generator owners. However, NERC acknowledges that ‘‘there are instances in which Transmission Owners or Generator Owners may receive and act on Operating Instructions within areas operated by RTOs or ISOs.’’ 27 NERC asserts that, in these instances, the generator owner or transmission owner is ‘‘acting on behalf of a registered Transmission Operator or Generator Operator under delegation as a member of the RTO or ISO.’’ 28 NERC asserts that, if performance of a reliability requirement is not achieved for a delegated task, ‘‘the relevant Transmission Operator or Generator Operator responsible for compliance with the Reliability Standards is and has been held accountable.’’ 29 30. NERC provides several examples of the various approaches to assigning compliance responsibility, including a Joint Registration Organization or Coordinated Functional Registration (as used in ERCOT), and assignment of compliance responsibility through operating agreements and manuals (as used in PJM). In both circumstances, NERC and Regional Entity auditors review the relevant documents assigning compliance responsibility ‘‘to determine whether there are gaps in performance under the Reliability Standards as a result of the delegation.’’ 30 In addition, NERC states that ‘‘the registered entity for a particular function retains responsibility for providing supporting documentation regarding how a task is delegated,’’ and ‘‘for providing proof of compliance under the Reliability Standards.’’ 31 31. EEI/EPSA maintains that generator owners do not receive and act on Operating Instructions, and therefore should not be included as applicable entities under the proposed standards. EEI/EPSA further maintains that transmission owners do not typically receive and act on Operating Instructions, except in regions where the transmission owners have arrangements to do so under specific operating contracts, and, in those cases, act ‘‘sol[ely] at the direction of a responsible regional TOP, having broad area responsibilities.’’ 32 32. Like NERC, ISO/RTO Council acknowledges that transmission owners and generator owners may act on Operating Instructions from an ISO/ RTO, at least within some ISO/RTO regions, but states that in those cases the ISOs have market rules and operating procedures in place for communicating Operating Instructions to utilities and other market participants within their footprint. ISO/RTO Council also asserts that ISOs and RTOs do not control the registration of transmission owners and generator owners within their footprint, but that the entity and the relevant Regional Entity ‘‘make the final determination on their registration.’’ 33 Finally, ISO/RTO Council suggests that applying the requirements of the proposed COM standards to generator owners and transmission owners ‘‘seems to address an administrative concern as opposed to a reliability concern,’’ given that the ‘‘core reliability issue at hand is determining whether the RC, BA or TOP command was followed by the relevant recipient,’’ and given that ISOs and RTOs have market rules or tariff provisions in place that require strict adherence by utilities and market participants.34 ISO/RTO Council also asserts that, if an ISO or RTO issues a command to an entity that is not registered as a transmission operator or generator operator, and there is a threepart communication failure resulting in an enforcement action, then the NERC Rules of Procedure should be used to hold that entity responsible.35 33. ITC asserts that Operating Instructions, as defined by NERC, 31 Id. 26 See NERC Comments at 2, 8; EEI/EPSA Comments at 3–4; ISO/RTO Council Comments at 4; ITC Comments at 4–5; Tri-State G&T Comments at 1. 27 NERC Comments at 8. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Id. at 10. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22389 at 11. 32 EEI/EPSA 33 ISO/RTO Comments at 3. Council Comments at 3. 34 Id. 35 Id. at 4 (asserting that the NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 4C, Section 5.11 allows for an ISO or RTO to include in an enforcement proceeding an entity that causes or contributes to an alleged violation of a Reliability Standard). E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 22390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES cannot apply to a generator owner or transmission owner. ITC raises a related question, however, as to whether a transmission operator can issue an Operating Instruction to another transmission operator under the proposed Reliability Standards.36 ITC seeks confirmation from the Commission that a transmission operator cannot issue such an instruction or directive to another transmission operator, or if no such confirmation is given, ITC asks that the Commission ‘‘explain the basis and process under which a Transmission Operator could issue such an Operating Instruction.’’ 37 34. Idaho Power asserts that COM– 002–4 does not apply to generator owners or transmission owners, without further discussion of whether such entities could ever receive and act on Operating Instructions as defined by NERC. Tri-State G&T agrees that generator owners and transmission owners should not be added as applicable entities, as they rarely, if ever receive an Operating Instruction. Commission Determination 35. While several commenters have acknowledged that transmission owners and generator owners can receive and act on Operating Instructions in certain regions, we are persuaded that the proposed Reliability Standards need not be expanded to include those entities at this time. In doing so, we are persuaded by the explanation of NERC that ‘‘[w]hile the Transmission Operator or Generator Operator may delegate tasks under the proposed Reliability Standards to other member entities within [an RTO or ISO], the Transmission Operator and Generator Operator retain responsibility for compliance with the Requirements in the proposed Reliability Standards.’’ 38 Moreover, we rely on NERC’s explanation that NERC and Regional Entity auditors examine contractual arrangements ‘‘to ascertain how tasks are delegated and to determine whether there are gaps in performance . . . as a result of the delegation. Responsibility will always rest with the entity registered with NERC as the Transmission Operator.’’ 39 Thus, in the PJM example, if a transmission owner with delegated operating responsibilities fails to use three-part communication as required under 36 ITC Comments at 5. 37 Id. at 6. 38 See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3–4; EEI/EPSA Comments at 3–4 (Commission approved Operating Agreements ‘‘contractually bind TOs to act in conformance with TOP obligations’’). 39 NERC Comments at 10–11. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 COM–002–4, the registered entity that has delegated the operating responsibilities will remain responsible for the violation. 36. ITC requests clarification whether or not a transmission operator can issue an Operating Instruction to another transmission operator, pursuant to COM–001–2 and COM–002–4. We find that the issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The two standards at issue in this proceeding relate to requirements for communications capability and communications protocols, and do not address the relative authorities as between functional entities to require another entity to modify its operations in real-time, which is more properly addressed in the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, including currently effective Reliability Standard TOP–1–1a.40 B. Internal Communication Capability NOPR 37. In the NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that Reliability Standard COM–001–2 does not appear to carry forward an explicit requirement to maintain adequate internal communications capabilities, unlike the existing COM–001 standard, which states that each reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority ‘‘shall provide adequate and reliable telecommunication facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information . . . internally.’’ 41 The Commission stated that maintaining adequate internal communications could be critical to reliability, pointing to specific recommendations in the 2003 Blackout Report. The Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to COM–001–2, or to develop a separate standard, ‘‘that ensures that entities maintain adequate internal communications capability, at least to the extent that such communications could involve the issuance or receipt of Operating Instructions or other 40 Requirement R1 of TOP–1–1a states that ‘‘Each Transmission Operator shall have the responsibility and clear decision-making authority to take whatever actions are needed to ensure the reliability of its area and shall exercise specific authority to alleviate operating emergencies.’’ The obligation of a functional entity to respond to an Operating Instruction is also expected to be more explicitly addressed in other TOP and IRO standards under development or awaiting Commission approval, including proposed Reliability Standard IRO–001–4, which requires transmission operators, balancing authorities, generator operators, and distribution providers to comply with their Reliability Coordinator’s Operating Instructions except under certain described circumstances. 41 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 28 (quoting COM–001–1.1, Requirement R1). PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 communications that could have an impact on reliability.’’ 42 Alternatively, the Commission suggested that a requirement for internal communication capability could be considered to be implicit in the proposed requirements for communications capability between functional entities, even if those functional entities reside within the same utility, and sought comment on this suggested interpretation as well as the proposed directive. Comments 38. NERC and most other commenters assert that Reliability Standard COM– 002–4 can and should be read to apply to internal communications between functional entities within the same organization, as the Commission suggested in the NOPR.43 NERC and NRECA also assert that acceptance of this interpretation should eliminate the need for further modification to COM– 002–4.44 ITC comments that COM–001– 2 should apply to internal communications between different functional entities within the same organization but only ‘‘when those communications are performed by means other than in direct, face-to-face situations.’’ 45 ITC continues, stating that ‘‘[f]or entities performing multiple functions that are located in close proximity such that direct, face-to-face communication is available, ITC does not see a reliability need for a requirement for Alternative Interpersonal Communication, and believes the Standards should be interpreted as not requiring AIC in these situations.’’ 46 ITC also advocates that, if the Commission does not find that COM–001–2 as submitted includes these kinds of internal communications, the standard ought to be modified to do so. 39. EEI/EPSA acknowledges that the approach taken in COM–001–2 is different than the currently-effective COM standard with respect to internal communications, but maintains that this change is consistent with results-based standards. EEI/EPSA maintains that ‘‘a result-based standard should not need to specifically cite facility requirements or the specific internal communication obligations,’’ and maintains that COM– 001–2 properly specifies 42 Id. P 30. Comments at 13; see also, e.g., NRECA Comments at 1, Idaho Power Comments at 4, and Tri-State Comments at 1. 44 NERC Comments at 13; NRECA Comments at 1–2. 45 ITC Comments at 7. 46 Id. 43 NERC E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES communications capability ‘‘at the Functional Entity level.’’ 47 Commission Determination 40. We agree with NERC and other commenters that Reliability Standard COM–001–2 applies to communications between functional entities within a single organization. For example, COM– 001–2, Requirement R3, provides that ‘‘each Transmission Operator shall have Interpersonal Communication capability’’ with the reliability coordinator, and each balancing authority, distribution provider, and generator operator ‘‘within its Transmission Operator Area.’’ We agree with NERC, ITC and other commenters that a reasonable understanding of Requirement R3 is that the transmission operator must have Interpersonal Communication capability with a balancing authority, distribution provider and/or generator operator within the same organization. Moreover, we agree with ITC that the COM–001– 2 requirements concerning Alternative Interpersonal Communication only apply when those communications are performed by means other than direct, face-to-face situations. 41. However, the application of COM– 001–2 to different functional entities within the same organization, as discussed above, does not fully address our concern set forth in the NOPR regarding internal communications.48 In particular, the NOPR explained that Requirement R1.1 of currently-effective COM–001–1.1 provides that each reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority ‘‘shall provide adequate and reliable telecommunication facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information . . . internally.’’ This currently-effective Requirement applies more broadly to internal communications, including internal communications within the same functional entity. Thus, unlike the currently-effective Reliability Standard, COM–001–2 does not address the adequacy of internal telecommunications (or other internal communication systems) that may have an adverse effect on reliability, even within a single functional entity, including: (1) Communications between geographically separate control centers within the same functional entity; and (2) communications between a control center and field personnel. These scenarios present a gap in reliability of the Bulk-Power System that NERC should address. Accordingly, pursuant 47 Id. at 4–5. NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at PP 28–31. 48 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, we direct NERC to develop modifications to COM–001–2, or to develop a new standard, to address our concerns regarding ensuring the adequacy of internal communications capability whenever internal communications could directly affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. C. Testing Requirements for Distribution Providers and Generator Operators NOPR 42. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that Reliability Standard COM–001–2 did not include a requirement that distribution providers and generator operators test or actively monitor their telecommunications systems, but were merely required to consult with each affected entity to determine a mutually agreeable action for restoration whenever a failure is detected.49 The Commission asked for comment on ‘‘why generator operators and distribution providers should not have some form of requirement to test or actively monitor vital primary and emergency telecommunication facilities.’’ 50 Comments 43. NERC and the other commenters on this issue maintain that there is no need for a testing requirement for generator operators and distribution providers comparable to that required for reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission operators, because generator operators and distribution providers are required to maintain only primary Interpersonal Communication capability, which is tested through routine use.51 NERC further explains that its approach is consistent with the Commission’s statement in Order No. 693 that ‘‘[w]e expect the telecommunication requirements for all applicable entities will vary according to their roles and that these requirements will be developed under the Reliability Standards development process.’’ 52 NERC also explains that the standard drafting team found that the obligation to detect and address failures in a 49 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 31 (citing to COM–001–2, Requirement R11). 50 Id, (citing System Restoration Reliability Standards, Order No. 749, 134 FERC ¶ 61,215, at P 28 (2011)). 51 See, e.g., NERC Comments at 14 (‘‘routine use is sufficient to demonstrate functionality of this . . . primary capability’’); EEI/EPSA Comments at 5–6 (‘‘a system in regular use would gain little through routine testing’’); and ISO/RTO Council Comments at 6–7 (‘‘capability will be ‘tested’ through regular use’’). 52 NERC Comments at 14–15 (quoting Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 487). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22391 primary communication system, as set out in Requirement R11 of COM–001–2, is sufficient, given ‘‘the limited impact a failure might have on Distribution Providers and Generator Operators overall.’’ 53 Commission Determination 44. We are persuaded by the comments of NERC and others that additional testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators are not necessary at this time. NERC and other commenters assert that the primary Interpersonal Communication systems used by a distribution provider or generator operator will effectively be tested through routine use, and that any potential failures in a given generator operator or distribution provider’s external communication system will not have a substantial impact on the BulkPower System. In light of this explanation, as well as our recognition in Order No. 693 that telecommunication requirements for applicable entities will vary according to their roles, we decline to require any additional testing requirements for distribution providers and generator operators at this time. D. Definition of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication NOPR 45. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification on the intended scope of the newly defined terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication.54 The Commission noted that NERC had explained the introduction of these terms as a means of eliminating the ambiguity in the terms ‘‘adequate and reliable’’ and ‘‘redundant and diversely routed’’ as currently used in Requirements R1 and R1.4 of COM–001–1.1. 46. The Commission raised two concerns about the new terms as used in proposed Reliability Standard COM– 001–2. First, the Commission noted that the definitions do not state a minimum expectation of communication performance, such as speed and 53 NERC Comments at 14. 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 32. As previously noted, NERC is proposing to define the terms, respectively, as follows: Interpersonal Communication—Any medium that allows two or more individuals to interact, consult, or exchange information. Alternative Interpersonal Communication—Any Interpersonal Communication that is able to serve as a substitute for, and does not utilize the same infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal Communication used for day-to-day operation. 54 NOPR, E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 22392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations quality.55 Second, the Commission asked for clarification as to whether Interpersonal Communication includes mediums used directly to exchange or transfer data, which communications appear to be covered under the currently-approved version of COM– 001.56 The Commission, thus, asked for further explanation ‘‘regarding acceptable (and unacceptable) performance of communication for both Interpersonal and Alternative Interpersonal Communications.’’ 57 Comments 47. With respect to minimum performance standards or specifications for the required communications mediums, none of the commenters believe such specifications are necessary or advisable. NERC maintains that additional specifications are not necessary because the standard as written requires applicable entities to have the working capability needed to maintain reliability.58 EEI/EPSA agrees that performance specifications are not necessary, and questions whether it is even possible to set such standards given the diversity of systems used.59 ISO/RTO Council asserts that it would be inadvisable to include technical specifications on the communication mediums required, as it could result in the use of the least expensive medium that could achieve compliance.60 Idaho Power suggests that the kinds of measurable characteristics that might be appropriate for use to establish minimum performance levels for data exchanges are not available here, because the proposed COM standards do not include data exchange. Tri-State G&T states that the most common expected mediums for communication under the standard will likely be email and telephone, and that there is no need to include minimum expectations of speed or performance because ‘‘all entities are focused on reliability and would always use the fastest and most reliable means of communication.’’ 61 48. With respect to the transfer of data as opposed to communications between persons, all of the commenters to directly address the issue acknowledge that proposed Reliability Standard 55 NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 33. As the Commission noted, COM–001–1.1, Requirement R1 addresses ‘‘telecommunications facilities for the exchange of Interconnection and operating information.’’ 57 Id. 58 NERC Comments at 4, 15–16. 59 EEI/EPSA Comments at 6–7. 60 ISO/RTO Council at 5. ISO/RTO Council also notes that its members already have requirements in place with their stakeholders on necessary technical requirements for voice and data exchange. 61 Tri-State G&T Comments at 2. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 56 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 COM–001–2 is not intended to, and does not, cover data exchanges or transfers. NERC (through its initial and supplemental comments) and ISO/RTO Council maintain that COM–001–2 need not include requirements regarding data transfer capability because such capability is covered under other existing or proposed standards. 49. With respect to existing standards, NERC states that the standard drafting team determined that IRO–010–1a and IRO–014–1 ‘‘provided the necessary mandatory Requirements to ensure proper data exchange is occurring.’’ 62 ISO/RTO Council provides several additional examples of existing Reliability Standards that address data exchange and transfer capability, including BAL–004–2b, R14; IRO–002– 2, R1; and TOP–006–2, R1.63 50. With respect to standards under development, NERC asserts that four proposed IRO and TOP standards, now approved by the Board, ‘‘include specific coverage related to data exchange,’’ and ‘‘collectively require data exchange capability’’ for reliability coordinators, transmission operators, balancing authorities, generator operators, and distribution providers.64 NERC describes the specific requirements in proposed Reliability Standards TOP–001–3, IRO–010–2, TOP–003–3, and IRO–002–4 that will address data exchange capabilities and/ or data exchange specifications for applicable functional entities. 51. EEI/EPSA and Idaho Power also maintain that the term Interpersonal Communication does not cover data exchange, with EEI/EPSA asserting that the phrase requires a system ‘‘that enables effective communications between two or more individuals.’’ 65 Moreover, EEI/EPSA understands the term Alternative Interpersonal Communication to require certain entities to have backup communications that do not utilize the same infrastructure. 52. ITC asserts that the definitions of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication ‘‘could ostensibly be 62 NERC Comments at 16. See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at 5–6 (noting that the standard drafting team explained that data communication is covered under Requirement R3 of IRO–010–1). 63 ISO/RTO Council Comments at 6, n.10. 64 NERC Supp. Comments at 3. NERC identified these same four standards in its Initial Comments, but provides a more detailed discussion of the proposed standards and their status in its Supplemental Comments. 65 EEI/EPSA at 7. Similarly, Idaho Power states that the term was intended to include voice and electronic messaging between people, and exclude data exchanges, such as SCADA and metering data. Idaho Power Comments at 4–5. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 interpreted to extend the Standard beyond verbal and written communications and Operating Instructions to include the transmission of electronic data between control systems that are monitored/used by system operators.’’ 66 ITC warns that ‘‘[i]f the Commission does indeed intend the scope of the Standards to extend to such electronic data transmission, the requirement for Alternative Interpersonal Communication may not be achievable’’ because ‘‘[i]t may simply not be possible to maintain a second pathway for the transmission of such data, whether by dint of data format, system compatibility, or the feasibility of installing a redundant system.’’ 67 ITC accordingly recommends that if an alternative pathway for data transmission is deemed necessary, then the Commission should retain the language from COM–001–1 which requires ‘‘redundant and diversely routed systems.’’ 68 Commission Determination 53. First, we are satisfied that technical specifications regarding minimum levels of performance for the mediums used to satisfy the requirements of COM–001–2 are not necessary at this time. In doing so, we note NERC’s explanation that the requirements in COM–001–2 are ‘‘absolute’’ and that entities must ‘‘have the capability in place to ‘establish Interpersonal Communication capabilities necessary to maintain reliability.’ ’’ 69 Moreover, we are persuaded by the commenters that setting performance criteria for the email and telephonic communications at issue here is both impractical and unnecessary. 54. Second, the NOPR raised concerns pertaining to whether COM–001–2 addresses ‘‘facilities that directly exchange or transfer data.’’ 70 In response, NERC states that data exchange capability is being addressed in proposed IRO and TOP standards.71 Accordingly, we do not make any determinations regarding data exchange capability in the immediate rulemaking. Rather, based on NERC’s explanation, we will address any issues regarding 66 ITC Comments at 8. 67 Id. 68 Id. at 9. Comments at 15–16. 70 See NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 33. 71 See NERC Supplemental Filing at 2–3. On March 18, 2015, NERC submitted a petition for approval of proposed Transmission Operations and Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, Docket No. RM15–15–000, pending before the Commission. 69 NERC E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations data exchange capability in the pending rulemaking pertaining to NERC’s proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards. III. Information Collection Statement 55. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.72 OMB’s regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.73 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. 56. The Commission solicited comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents’ burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asked that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates were generated. 57. The Final Rule approves Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and COM–002–4, as well as NERC’s proposed retirement of currentlyeffective Reliability Standards COM– 001–1.1 and COM–002–2. Reliability Standard COM–001–2 establishes Interpersonal Communication capability necessary to maintain reliability, while Reliability Standard COM–002–4 improves communications related to Operating Instructions, requiring issuers of Operating Instructions to adopt predefined communications protocols and requiring both issuers and recipients of Operating Instructions to use three-part communications. Public Reporting Burden: Reliability Standards COM–001–2 and COM–002– 4 do not require responsible entities to file information with the Commission. However, the Reliability Standards require applicable entities to develop and maintain certain information, subject to audit. In particular, COM– 001–2 requires that transmission operators, balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, distribution providers, and generator operators must maintain documentation of Interpersonal Communication capability and designation of Alternate Interpersonal Communication, as well as evidence of testing of the Alternate Interpersonal Communication facilities. COM–002–4 requires balancing authorities, distribution providers, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and generator operators to develop and maintain documented communication protocols, and to be able to provide evidence of training on the protocols and of their annual assessment of the protocols. Additionally, all applicable entities (balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator operators, and distribution providers) must be able to provide evidence of three-part communication 22393 when issuing or receiving an Operating Instruction during an Emergency. Many of the record retention or information collection requirements in COM–001–2 and COM–002–4 are translated in some form from the currently-effective Reliability Standards (COM–001–1 and COM–002–2). For these requirements, the Commission estimates a zero net change in burden. Accordingly, our estimate below shows the increase in record-retention or information collection burden, based on the new requirements to: (1) Develop communications protocols (a one-time burden under COM–002–4, Requirement R1), (2) maintain evidence of required training, assessments, and use of three-part communications, as applicable (an on-going burden under COM–002–4 Requirements R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6); and (3) maintain evidence to demonstrate Interpersonal Communication capability (a new, on-going burden for distribution providers and generator operators under COM–001–2 Requirements R7 and R8). The Commission’s estimate of the number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of August 15, 2014. According to the NERC compliance registry, NERC has registered 179 transmission operators, 107 balancing authorities, 15 reliability coordinators, 475 distribution providers, and 853 generator operators within the United States. However, under NERC’s compliance registration program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting, which has been accounted for in the table below. The Commission estimates the annual reporting burden and cost as follows: Number and type of respondents mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES (One-time) Development of Communication Protocols [COM–002–4 R1]. (On-going) Maintain evidence of Interpersonal Communication capability [COM–001–2 R7 and R8].76 (On-going) Maintain evidence of training and assessments [COM–002–4 R2, R4, R5 and R6]. (On-going) Maintain evidence of training [COM–002–4 R3, and R6]. 72 44 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 Total number of responses Avg. burden & cost per response 74 Total annual burden hours & total annual cost 75 (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) 212 ............................ (BA, RC & TOP) ........ 1,217 ......................... (DP & GOP) .............. 1 212 8 hrs. & $522.72 1 1,217 4 hrs. & $133.68 1,696 hours & $110,816.64 4,868 hours & $162,688.56 212 ............................ (BA, RC & TOP) ........ 1 212 8 hrs. & $267.36 1,696 hours & $56,680.32 1,217 ......................... (DP & GOP) .............. 1 1,217 8 hrs. & $267.36 9,736 hours & $ 325,377.12 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012). CFR 1320.11 (2013). 74 The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information, as of March 19, 2015, for an electrical engineer ($65.34/hour for review and documentation) and for an Information and Record Clerk ($33.42/hour for record retention). These figures have been updated since issuance of the 73 5 Annual number of responses per respondent (1) Information collection requirement NOPR, and are available at: https://bls.gov/oes/ current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000. The first row of the table (one-time burden) is done by an engineer, and the latter three rows (ongoing burden) are done by a file clerk. 75 This dollar burden figure in row 3 of this chart was incorrectly stated in the NOPR, which led to an incorrect estimate of the total dollar burden for the industry in row 5. Both estimates as stated in PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the NOPR were higher than the corrected and updated estimate reflected in this Final Rule. 76 No change is expected in the record-keeping burden under COM–001–2 for reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators as compared to the currently-effective COM–001 standard. E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 22394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Total ................................................... Number and type of respondents Annual number of responses per respondent Total number of responses Avg. burden & cost per response 74 Total annual burden hours & total annual cost 75 (1) Information collection requirement (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) .................................... ........................ Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: COM Reliability Standards. Action: Proposed FERC–725V. OMB Control No: 1902–0277. Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions; not-for-profit institutions. Frequency of Responses: One-time and ongoing. Necessity of the Information: The approval of Reliability Standards COM– 001–2 and COM–002–4 implements the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation’s Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the purpose of the Reliability Standards is to establish Interpersonal Communication capability necessary to maintain reliability, and to improve communications for the issuance of Operating Instructions with predefined communications protocols. The proposed Reliability Standards require entities to maintain records subject to review by the Commission and NERC to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standards. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to the Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System and determined that the requirements are necessary to meet the statutory provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These requirements conform to the Commission’s plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 58. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 59. Comments concerning the information collections approved in this Final Rule and the associated burden VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 2,858 estimates should be sent to the Commission in these dockets and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference FERC–725V and the docket numbers of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. RM14–13–000) in your submission. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 60. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 77 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Reliability Standard COM–001–2 is expected to impose burdens for the first time on 1,217 entities (i.e., distribution providers and generator operators).78 Reliability Standard COM–002–4 may apply to as many as 1,279 entities.79 Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC’s small business data indicates that approximately 934 of the 1,279 entities are small entities.80 61. Reliability Standard COM–002–4 will serve to enhance reliability by, among other things, requiring adoption 77 5 U.S.C. 601–612. number of small distribution providers required to comply with the COM standards may decrease significantly. In March 2015, the Commission approved revisions to the NERC Rules of Procedure to implement NERC’s ‘‘risk based registration’’ program, which raised the registry threshold for distribution providers from a 25 MW to 75 MW peak load. North American Electric Reliability Corp., 150 FERC ¶ 61,213 (2015). 79 The applicable entities are balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator operators, and distribution providers. After accounting for entities registered for more than one function, the total count is 1,279 entities. 80 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with a size threshold based on the company’s number of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and subsidiaries. The possible categories for the applicable entities have a size threshold ranging from 250 employees to 1,000 employees. We are using the 1000 employee threshold for this analysis. 78 The PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 ........................... 17,996 hours & $655,562.64 of predefined communication protocols, annual assessment of those protocols and operating personnel’s adherence thereto, training on the protocols, and use of three-part communications. The Commission estimates that each small balancing authority, reliability coordinator, and transmission operator subject to Reliability Standard COM– 002–4 will incur one-time compliance costs of about $523 (i.e. development of communication protocols), plus ongoing annual costs of about $790 (i.e. performing training and maintaining evidence of training and assessments).81 The Commission estimates that each of the small distribution provider and generator operator entities potentially subject to Reliability Standards COM– 001–2 and COM–002–4 will incur ongoing annual costs of about $887 (i.e. performing training and maintaining evidence of interpersonal communication capability and of training).82 The Commission does not consider the estimated costs per small entity to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. V. Environmental Analysis 62. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.83 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.84 The actions approved herein fall within this 81 The ongoing annual costs for both paperwork and training are based on (8 hours * $33.42) + (8 * $65.34) = $790.16 or approximately $790.00. 82 The ongoing annual cost is based on (12 * $33.42) + (8 * $60.70) = $886.64 or approximately $887.00. 83 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 84 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Issued: April 16, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. categorical exclusion in the Commission’s regulations. VI. Document Availability [FR Doc. 2015–09225 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 63. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission’s Home Page (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. 64. From the Commission’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 65. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site during normal business hours from the Commission’s Online Support at 202– 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at 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. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 66. This Final Rule is effective June 22, 2015. 67. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.85 The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office. 68. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission’s Home Page (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. By direction of the Commission. 85 See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Apr 21, 2015 BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM14–10–000; Order No. 810] Real Power Balancing Control Performance Reliability Standard Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability Standard BAL– 001–2 (Real Power Balancing Control Performance) and four new definitions submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. Reliability Standard BAL–001–2 is designed to ensure that applicable entities maintain system frequency within narrow bounds around a scheduled value, and improves reliability by adding a frequency component to the measurement of a Balancing Authority’s Area Control Error. In addition, the Commission directs NERC to submit an informational filing pertaining to the potential impact of the Reliability Standard, and also directs NERC to revise one definition. DATES: This rule is effective June 22, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Enakpodia Agbedia (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502–6750, Enakpodia.Agbedia@ ferc.gov. Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8524, Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Order No. 810 Final Rule 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the 1 16 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 U.S.C. 824(o). Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22395 Commission approves Reliability Standard BAL–001–2 (Real Power Balancing Control Performance) submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). Reliability Standard BAL–001–2 applies to balancing authorities and Regulation Reserve Sharing Groups,2 and is intended to ensure that Interconnection frequency is maintained within predefined frequency limits. The Commission also finds that Reliability Standard BAL–001–2 addresses the Commission’s directive set forth in Order No. 693 pertaining to BAL–002– 0.3 The Commission approves the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard BAL–001–1 immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard BAL–001–2. 2. Further, the Commission approves NERC’s four proposed definitions, associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date. The Commission also directs NERC to submit an informational filing 90 days after the end of the two-year period following implementation that includes an analysis of data on whether experience with the Balancing Authority ACE Limit in the first two years after approval has seen ACE swings and inadvertent interchange 4 and unscheduled power flows 5 that could cause system operating limit (SOL) and interconnection reliability operating limit (IROL) exceedances, and further directs NERC to revise one definition. I. Background 3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards that are subject to Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may approve, by rule or order, a proposed 2 NERC defines Regulation Reserve Sharing Group as ‘‘[a]group whose members consist of two or more Balancing Authorities that collectively maintain, allocate, and supply the Regulating Reserve required for all member Balancing Authorities to use in meeting applicable regulating standards.’’ NERC Petition at 7. 3 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 4 Inadvertent interchange is ‘‘[t]he difference between the Balancing Authority’s Net Actual Interchange and Net Scheduled Interchange. (IA– IS).’’ NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) at 42. 5 Unscheduled power flows generally refers to power flows that result from the law of physics that causes power from a given source to flow over all possible paths to its destination. E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22385-22395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09225]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM14-13-000; Order No. 808]

Communications Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, the Commission approves two
revised Reliability Standards, COM-001-2 (Communications) and COM-002-4
(Operating Personnel Communications Protocols), developed by the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission
has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for
developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The two
revised Reliability Standards will enhance reliability by, among other
things, requiring adoption of predefined communication protocols,
annual assessment of those protocols and operating personnel's
adherence thereto, training on the protocols, and use of three-part
communications. In addition, the Commission directs NERC to develop a
modification to Reliability Standard COM-001-2 that addresses internal
communications capabilities that could involve the issuance or receipt
of Operating Instructions or other communications that could have an
impact on reliability.

DATES: This rule will become effective June 22, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent Le (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-6204, Vincent.le@ferc.gov.
Michael Gandolfo (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6817, Michael.gandolfo@ferc.gov.
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-6362, julie.greenisen@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 22386]]

Order No. 808 Final Rule

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves two Reliability Standards, COM-001-2
(Communications) and COM-002-4 (Operating Personnel Communications
Protocols), developed by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric
Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing
mandatory Reliability Standards. The Commission also approves three new
defined terms for addition to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in
Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), violation risk factors,
violation severity levels, and NERC's proposed implementation plan for
both revised standards. Further, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the
FPA, the Commission directs that NERC develop one modification to
Reliability Standard COM-001-2 that addresses internal communications
capabilities to the extent that such communications could involve the
issuance or receipt of Operating Instructions or other communications
that could have an impact on reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reliability Standard COM-001-2 is intended to establish a clear
set of requirements for the communications capabilities that applicable
functional entities must have in place and maintain. Reliability
Standard COM-002-4 requires applicable entities to develop
communication protocols with certain minimum requirements, including
use of three-part communication when issuing Operating Instructions.\2\
Reliability Standard COM-002-4 also sets out certain communications
training requirements for all issuers and recipients of Operating
Instructions, and establishes a flexible enforcement approach for
failure to use three-part communication during non-emergencies and a
``zero-tolerance,'' i.e., without exception, enforcement approach for
failure to use three-part communication during an emergency.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ NERC proposes to define Operating Instruction as ``[a]
command by operating personnel responsible for the Real-time
operation of the interconnected Bulk Electric System to change or
preserve the state, status, output, or input of an Element of the
Bulk Electric System or Facility of the Bulk Electric System. (A
discussion of general information and of potential options or
alternatives . . . is not considered an Operating Instruction.).''
\3\ See NERC Petition at 3 (``during Emergencies, operating
personnel must use the documented communication protocols for three-
part communications without exception.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. We find that Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 will
enhance reliability over the currently-effective versions of these
Communications (COM) standards in several respects. For example, the
Reliability Standards as modified expand applicability to include
generator operators and distribution providers, eliminate certain
ambiguities in the currently-effective standards, and clarify that the
use of three-part communication is required for issuance and receipt of
all Operating Instructions, with a zero-tolerance approach to
enforcement of that requirement during an emergency. However, we are
not persuaded that COM-001-2 adequately covers all situations in which
Operating Instructions are issued or received and, therefore, direct
NERC to develop a modification to that standard that addresses our
concern, as further discussed below.

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background

4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval.\4\
Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO
subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.\5\
In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA
section 215.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 16 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d).
\5\ See id. at 824o(e).
\6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Commission approved Reliability Standard COM-001-1 in Order
No. 693.\7\ In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to COM-001-1 to: (1) expand the applicability of the
standard to include generator operators and distribution providers, (2)
identify specific requirements for telecommunications facilities for
use in normal and emergency conditions that reflect the roles of the
applicable entities, and (3) include adequate flexibility for
compliance to allow for the adoption of new technologies and cost-
effective solutions.\8\ Similarly, the Commission approved Reliability
Standard COM-002-2 in Order No. 693. In addition, the Commission
directed NERC to develop modifications to (1) include distribution
providers as applicable entities, and (2) establish tightened
communications protocols, especially for communications during alerts
and emergencies.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 508, order
on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007); see also North
American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD09-2-000 (2009)
(delegated letter order accepting Reliability Standard COM-001-1.1).
\8\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 508.
\9\ Id. PP 531-535, 540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. NERC initiated Project 2006-06 to address the Order No. 693
directives related to Reliability Standards COM-001 and COM-002,
resulting in two proposed Reliability Standards, COM-001-2 and COM-002-
3. NERC also initiated Project 2007-02 to develop a new Reliability
Standard (COM-003) that would require real-time system operators to use
standardized communication protocols during normal and emergency
operations, in order to improve situational awareness and shorten
response time. The two projects ultimately merged when drafts of
Reliability Standard COM-002-3 and COM-003-1 were combined into a
single proposed Reliability Standard, COM-002-4.

B. NERC Petition

7. On May 14, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of two
revised communication standards, COM-001-2 (Communications) and COM-
002-4 (Operating Personnel Communications Protocols).\10\ Proposed
Reliability Standard COM-001-2 establishes a set of requirements for
the communications capabilities that various functional entities must
maintain to enable communications with other identified functional
entities. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4 requires applicable
entities to develop documented communications protocols. NERC stated in
its petition that the proposed standards are intended to address all
relevant Commission directives from Order No. 693. In addition, NERC
stated that the revisions reflected in proposed COM-002-4 are intended
to address Recommendation No. 26 from the final report on the August
2003 blackout issued by the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force
(Blackout Report) concerning the need to ``[t]ighten communications
protocols, especially for communications during alerts and
emergencies.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The COM Reliability Standards are not attached to the Final
Rule. The complete text of the two Reliability Standards is
available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in
Docket No. RM14-13 and is posted on the ERO's Web site, available
at: https://www.nerc.com.
\11\ NERC Petition at 3 (quoting U.S.-Canada Power System Outage
Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the
United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations at 3 (April
2004) (Blackout Report), available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 22387]]

Reliability Standard COM-001-2
8. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM-001-2
establishes requirements for Interpersonal Communication capabilities
necessary to maintain reliability. NERC explained that proposed
Reliability Standard COM-001-2 applies to reliability coordinators,
balancing authorities, transmission operators, generator operators, and
distribution providers. The proposed Reliability Standard includes
eleven requirements and two new defined terms, ``Interpersonal
Communication'' and ``Alternative Interpersonal Communication,'' that,
according to NERC, collectively provide a comprehensive approach to
establishing communications capabilities necessary to maintain
reliability.\12\ NERC stated that the definitions provide clarity that
an entity's communication capability must be redundant and that each of
the capabilities must not utilize the same medium. According to NERC,
the definitions improve the language used in the current Reliability
Standard by eliminating the use of the more ambiguous phrases
``adequate and reliable'' and ``redundant and diversely routed'' that
relate to ``telecommunications facilities for the exchange of
Interconnection and operating information.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Id. at 15. NERC defines Interpersonal Communication as
``[a]ny medium that allows two or more individuals to interact,
consult, or exchange information'' and Alternative Interpersonal
Communication as ``[a]ny Interpersonal Communication that is able to
serve as a substitute for, and does not utilize the same
infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal Communication used for
day-to-day operation.'' Id.
\13\ Id. at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. The first six requirements of COM-001-2 address the
Interpersonal Communication capability and Alternative Interpersonal
Communication capability of the reliability coordinator, transmission
operator, and balancing authority functions. Requirement R1 requires
each reliability coordinator to have Interpersonal Communication
capability with all transmission operators and balancing authorities
within its reliability coordinator area, and with each adjacent
reliability coordinator within the same interconnection. Requirement R2
requires each reliability coordinator to designate Alternative
Interpersonal Communication capability with those same identified
entities. Requirements R3 and R4 set out the communications capability
requirements for a transmission operator. Under Requirement R3,
Interpersonal Communication capability is required between the
transmission operator's reliability coordinator, each balancing
authority within its transmission operator area, each distribution
provider and generator operator within its transmission operator area,
and each adjacent transmission operator whether synchronously or
asynchronously connected. Under Requirement R4, Alternative
Interpersonal Communication capability must be designated between the
transmission operator's reliability coordinator, each balancing
authority within its transmission operator area, and each adjacent
transmission operator. Requirements R5 and R6 set out similar
requirements for each balancing authority, again identifying the
specific functional entities for which the balancing authority must
maintain Interpersonal Communication capability and for which it must
designate Alternative Interpersonal Communication capability.
10. Requirements R7 and R8 address the communications capability
that distribution providers and generator operators must maintain, with
each required to have Interpersonal Communications capability with its
balancing authority and its transmission operator.
11. Requirement R9 requires each reliability coordinator,
transmission operator, and balancing authority to test its Alternative
Interpersonal Communication capability at least once each calendar
month, and to initiate action to repair or designate a replacement if
the test is unsuccessful. Requirement R10 requires the same entities to
notify applicable entities (as identified in R1, R3 and R5) of the
detection of an Interpersonal Communication capability failure that
lasts 30 minutes or longer. Finally, Requirement R11 requires
distribution providers and generator operators to consult with affected
balancing authorities and transmission operators when a failure is
detected in their Interpersonal Communication capability, and to
determine a mutually agreeable action for the restoration of that
capability.
12. NERC stated in its petition that proposed Reliability Standard
COM-001-2 improves the currently-effective Reliability Standard by: (1)
Eliminating terms that do not adequately specify the desired actions
that applicable entities are expected to take in relation to their
telecommunication facilities; (2) clearly identifying the need for
applicable entities to be capable of Interpersonal Communication and
Alternative Interpersonal Communication; (3) not requiring specific
technology or systems to be utilized; and (4) including the
distribution provider and generator operator as applicable
entities.\14\ NERC added that COM-001-2 also addresses relevant
directives from Order No. 693 by (1) adding generator operators and
distribution providers as applicable entities; (2) identifying specific
requirements for telecommunications capabilities for use in all
operating conditions that reflect the roles of the applicable entities
and their impact on reliability; and (3) including adequate flexibility
to permit the adoption of new technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ NERC Petition at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. NERC proposed to retire currently-effective COM-001-1.1 when
proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-2 becomes effective, with the
exception of Requirement R4, which addresses communications protocols.
NERC requested that Requirement R4 be retired when proposed Reliability
Standard COM-002-4 becomes effective.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reliability Standard COM-002-4
14. NERC stated in its petition that Reliability Standard COM-002-4
improves communications surrounding the issuance of Operating
Instructions by requiring the use of predefined communications
protocols to reduce the possibility of miscommunication that could lead
to action or inaction harmful to reliability.\16\ NERC noted that the
proposed standard requires use of the same protocols regardless of
operating condition (i.e., Emergency or non-emergency), but requires
operating personnel to use the documented communication protocols for
three-part communications ``without exception'' during an
Emergency.\17\ As NERC explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Id. at 23. NERC stated that COM-002-3 (which was adopted by
the NERC Board but not submitted to the Commission for approval) is
proposed for retirement in the Implementation Plan because the
proposed Reliability Standard has been combined with proposed COM-
003-1 to create proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4. NERC stated
that Reliability Standard COM-002-3 has not been submitted to the
Commission for approval, therefore, the currently effective version
of COM-002 is COM-002-2. Id. at 23 n.43. Reliability Standard COM-
002-4 combines proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-3 and the
former draft COM-003-1 into a single standard that addresses
communications protocols for operating personnel in Emergency and
non-emergency conditions. Id. at 23-24.
\17\ Id. at 3.

[T]he proposed Reliability Standard employs the phrase
``Operating Instruction during an Emergency'' in certain

[[Page 22388]]

requirements (R5, R6, R7) to provide a demarcation for what is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
subject to a zero-tolerance compliance approach and what is not.\18\

\18\ Id. at 25.

NERC explained that, for Operating Instructions issued during non-
emergency operations, ``an entity will be assessed under a compliance
approach that focuses on whether an entity meets the initial training
Requirement (either R2 or R3) and whether an entity performed the
assessment and took corrective actions according to Requirement R4.''
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Finally, NERC stated that the proposed Reliability Standard
includes distribution providers and generator operators as applicable
entities, in accordance with the Commission's directive in Order No.
693, and in recognition of the fact that these types of entities can be
recipients of Operating Instructions.
16. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4 includes seven
requirements. Requirement R1 requires entities that can both issue and
receive Operating Instructions (balancing authorities, reliability
coordinators and transmission operators) to have documented
communications protocols that include a minimum set of elements,
including use of the English language unless otherwise specified, and
required use of three-part communications for issuance and receipt of
Operating Instructions.\20\ Requirement R2 requires these same entities
to conduct initial training on the communications protocols for each of
their operating personnel responsible for the real-time operation of
the bulk electric system. Requirement R3 requires distribution
providers and generator operators (who generally only receive but do
not issue Operating Instructions) to conduct initial training on three-
part communication for each of their operating personnel who can
receive an oral two-party, person-to-person Operating Instruction,
prior to that individual operator receiving an oral two-party, person-
to-person Operating Instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Requirement R4 requires each balancing authority, reliability
coordinator and transmission operator to assess, at least once every
twelve months, its operating personnel's adherence to the documented
communication protocols required in Requirement R1, and to provide
feedback to its operating personnel on their performance.
18. Requirement R5 requires balancing authorities, reliability
coordinators and transmission operators that issue an oral two-party,
person-to-person ``Operating Instruction during an Emergency'' to use
three-part communication, and to take an alternative action if a
confirmation is not received. Requirement R6 requires all applicable
entities (balancing authorities, distribution providers, generator
operators, and transmission operators) that receive an oral two-party,
person-to-person ``Operating Instruction during an Emergency'' to use
three-part communication, i.e., to repeat the Operating Instruction and
receive confirmation from the issuer that the response was correct, or
request that the issuer reissue the Operating Instruction. Both
Requirement R5 and R6 include the clarification that the requirement
does not apply to single-party to multiple-party ``burst'' Operating
Instructions. As noted above, NERC explains that Requirements R5 and R6
require use of three-part communication during an Emergency without
exception, because ``use of three-part communication is critically
important if an Emergency condition already exists, as further action
or inaction could increase the harmful effects to the Bulk Electric
System.'' \21\ NERC further explains, however, that applicable entities
are expected to use three-part communications at all times when issuing
and receiving Operating Instructions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Id. at 39.
\22\ Id. at 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Finally, Requirement R7 requires that when a balancing
authority, reliability coordinator, or transmission operator issues a
written or oral single-party to multiple-party ``burst'' Operating
Instruction during an Emergency, they must confirm or verify that at
least one receiver received the Operating Instruction.
20. NERC requested that proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
twelve months after the date that the standard is approved.

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

21. On September 19, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standards
COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), along with
the three new definitions referenced in the proposed standards
(Operating Instruction, Interpersonal Communication, and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication), the assigned violation risk factors and
violation severity levels, and the proposed implementation plan for
each standard.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Communications Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 79 FR 58709 (Sept. 30, 2014), 148 FERC ] 61,210 (2014)
(NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the two revised
standards addressed outstanding directives from Order No. 693, in that
COM-001-2 has been expanded to include distribution providers and
generator operators, and COM-002-4 has been expanded to include
distribution providers.\24\ The Commission also stated that Reliability
Standard COM-002-4 would enhance reliability by providing for improved
communications through the required development of communication
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Id. PP 22, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. In the NOPR, the Commission also discussed the following
specific matters and asked for further comment: (1) Responsibility for
use of three-part communication by transmission owners and generator
owners that receive Operator Instructions; (2) whether COM-001-2 should
be modified to address internal communication capability requirements,
or to address testing requirements for distribution providers and
generator operators; and (3) clarifications regarding the proposed
terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal
Communication.
24. Timely comments on the NOPR were filed by: NERC; the Edison
Electric Institute and the Electric Power Supply Association (EEI/
EPSA); ISO/RTO Council; the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA); International Transmission Company (ITC); Idaho
Power Company (Idaho Power); and Tri-State G&T. In addition, on March
6, 2015, NERC filed Supplemental Comments.

II. Discussion

25. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we adopt our NOPR
proposal and approve Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4,
including the associated definitions, violation risk factors, violation
severity levels, and implementation plans, as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. We
note that all of the commenters that addressed the overall value of the
Reliability Standards supported, or did not oppose, approval of the two
revised standards. We determine that COM-001-2 will enhance reliability
by expanding the

[[Page 22389]]

applicability of currently effective COM-001-1.1 to include generator
operators and distribution providers as applicable entities under the
COM-001 standard, and by expanding the applicability of COM-002-4 to
include distribution providers. We further find that COM-002-4 will
enhance reliability by requiring all issuers and recipients of
Operating Instructions to develop communications protocols that require
use of three-part communications, by requiring training on those
protocols, and by adopting a zero-tolerance enforcement approach to the
use of three-part communications during an Emergency. Moreover, we
conclude that requiring issuers of Operating Instructions to perform an
annual assessment of their personnel's adherence to the communications
protocols will help ensure a high level of compliance with three-part
communications at all times.
26. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission
directs that NERC develop one modification to COM-001-2 to address our
concerns regarding applicability to certain internal communications, as
discussed below.
27. Below, we discuss the following matters: (A) Ensuring use of
three-part communications by generator owners and transmission owners;
(B) internal communication capability requirements; (C) testing
requirements for distribution providers and generator operators; and
(D) scope of the terms Interpersonal Communication and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication.

A. Applicability to Generator Owners and Transmission Owners NOPR

28. In the NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that generator
owners and transmission owners are not ``applicable entities'' under
either COM-001-2 or COM-002-4, although these entities could, under
some circumstances, receive and act on Operating Instructions.\25\ The
Commission sought comment on the obligations of an applicable entity
when issuing an Operating Instruction to a transmission owner or
generator owner, including information regarding which entity is
responsible if the transmission owner or generator owner fails to
perform three-part communication properly. In addition, the Commission
asked NERC to explain its auditing practices when reviewing operating
agreements between transmission operators and transmission owners, and
between generator operators and generation owners, including NERC's
approach to reviewing the protocols of any transmission owner or
generator owner that acts on an Operating Instruction in order to
ensure that three-part communication is used appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See id. PP 25-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
29. All commenters that address this issue maintain that the two
revised COM Reliability Standards appropriately identify the entities
that issue and/or receive Operating Instructions, and that the two
standards should not be expanded to include transmission owners or
generator owners.\26\ NERC states that the two COM standards are
appropriately tailored to apply to those functional entities that
operate the Bulk-Power System as described in the NERC Functional Model
and, therefore, apply to transmission operators and generator operators
rather than transmission owners and generator owners. However, NERC
acknowledges that ``there are instances in which Transmission Owners or
Generator Owners may receive and act on Operating Instructions within
areas operated by RTOs or ISOs.'' \27\ NERC asserts that, in these
instances, the generator owner or transmission owner is ``acting on
behalf of a registered Transmission Operator or Generator Operator
under delegation as a member of the RTO or ISO.'' \28\ NERC asserts
that, if performance of a reliability requirement is not achieved for a
delegated task, ``the relevant Transmission Operator or Generator
Operator responsible for compliance with the Reliability Standards is
and has been held accountable.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ See NERC Comments at 2, 8; EEI/EPSA Comments at 3-4; ISO/
RTO Council Comments at 4; ITC Comments at 4-5; Tri-State G&T
Comments at 1.
\27\ NERC Comments at 8.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. NERC provides several examples of the various approaches to
assigning compliance responsibility, including a Joint Registration
Organization or Coordinated Functional Registration (as used in ERCOT),
and assignment of compliance responsibility through operating
agreements and manuals (as used in PJM). In both circumstances, NERC
and Regional Entity auditors review the relevant documents assigning
compliance responsibility ``to determine whether there are gaps in
performance under the Reliability Standards as a result of the
delegation.'' \30\ In addition, NERC states that ``the registered
entity for a particular function retains responsibility for providing
supporting documentation regarding how a task is delegated,'' and ``for
providing proof of compliance under the Reliability Standards.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ Id. at 10.
\31\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. EEI/EPSA maintains that generator owners do not receive and act
on Operating Instructions, and therefore should not be included as
applicable entities under the proposed standards. EEI/EPSA further
maintains that transmission owners do not typically receive and act on
Operating Instructions, except in regions where the transmission owners
have arrangements to do so under specific operating contracts, and, in
those cases, act ``sol[ely] at the direction of a responsible regional
TOP, having broad area responsibilities.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ EEI/EPSA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. Like NERC, ISO/RTO Council acknowledges that transmission
owners and generator owners may act on Operating Instructions from an
ISO/RTO, at least within some ISO/RTO regions, but states that in those
cases the ISOs have market rules and operating procedures in place for
communicating Operating Instructions to utilities and other market
participants within their footprint. ISO/RTO Council also asserts that
ISOs and RTOs do not control the registration of transmission owners
and generator owners within their footprint, but that the entity and
the relevant Regional Entity ``make the final determination on their
registration.'' \33\ Finally, ISO/RTO Council suggests that applying
the requirements of the proposed COM standards to generator owners and
transmission owners ``seems to address an administrative concern as
opposed to a reliability concern,'' given that the ``core reliability
issue at hand is determining whether the RC, BA or TOP command was
followed by the relevant recipient,'' and given that ISOs and RTOs have
market rules or tariff provisions in place that require strict
adherence by utilities and market participants.\34\ ISO/RTO Council
also asserts that, if an ISO or RTO issues a command to an entity that
is not registered as a transmission operator or generator operator, and
there is a three-part communication failure resulting in an enforcement
action, then the NERC Rules of Procedure should be used to hold that
entity responsible.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id. at 4 (asserting that the NERC Rules of Procedure,
Appendix 4C, Section 5.11 allows for an ISO or RTO to include in an
enforcement proceeding an entity that causes or contributes to an
alleged violation of a Reliability Standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. ITC asserts that Operating Instructions, as defined by NERC,

[[Page 22390]]

cannot apply to a generator owner or transmission owner. ITC raises a
related question, however, as to whether a transmission operator can
issue an Operating Instruction to another transmission operator under
the proposed Reliability Standards.\36\ ITC seeks confirmation from the
Commission that a transmission operator cannot issue such an
instruction or directive to another transmission operator, or if no
such confirmation is given, ITC asks that the Commission ``explain the
basis and process under which a Transmission Operator could issue such
an Operating Instruction.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ ITC Comments at 5.
\37\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. Idaho Power asserts that COM-002-4 does not apply to generator
owners or transmission owners, without further discussion of whether
such entities could ever receive and act on Operating Instructions as
defined by NERC. Tri-State G&T agrees that generator owners and
transmission owners should not be added as applicable entities, as they
rarely, if ever receive an Operating Instruction.
Commission Determination
35. While several commenters have acknowledged that transmission
owners and generator owners can receive and act on Operating
Instructions in certain regions, we are persuaded that the proposed
Reliability Standards need not be expanded to include those entities at
this time. In doing so, we are persuaded by the explanation of NERC
that ``[w]hile the Transmission Operator or Generator Operator may
delegate tasks under the proposed Reliability Standards to other member
entities within [an RTO or ISO], the Transmission Operator and
Generator Operator retain responsibility for compliance with the
Requirements in the proposed Reliability Standards.'' \38\ Moreover, we
rely on NERC's explanation that NERC and Regional Entity auditors
examine contractual arrangements ``to ascertain how tasks are delegated
and to determine whether there are gaps in performance . . . as a
result of the delegation. Responsibility will always rest with the
entity registered with NERC as the Transmission Operator.'' \39\ Thus,
in the PJM example, if a transmission owner with delegated operating
responsibilities fails to use three-part communication as required
under COM-002-4, the registered entity that has delegated the operating
responsibilities will remain responsible for the violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at 3-4; EEI/EPSA Comments
at 3-4 (Commission approved Operating Agreements ``contractually
bind TOs to act in conformance with TOP obligations'').
\39\ NERC Comments at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. ITC requests clarification whether or not a transmission
operator can issue an Operating Instruction to another transmission
operator, pursuant to COM-001-2 and COM-002-4. We find that the issue
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The two standards at issue in
this proceeding relate to requirements for communications capability
and communications protocols, and do not address the relative
authorities as between functional entities to require another entity to
modify its operations in real-time, which is more properly addressed in
the TOP and IRO Reliability Standards, including currently effective
Reliability Standard TOP-1-1a.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Requirement R1 of TOP-1-1a states that ``Each Transmission
Operator shall have the responsibility and clear decision-making
authority to take whatever actions are needed to ensure the
reliability of its area and shall exercise specific authority to
alleviate operating emergencies.'' The obligation of a functional
entity to respond to an Operating Instruction is also expected to be
more explicitly addressed in other TOP and IRO standards under
development or awaiting Commission approval, including proposed
Reliability Standard IRO-001-4, which requires transmission
operators, balancing authorities, generator operators, and
distribution providers to comply with their Reliability
Coordinator's Operating Instructions except under certain described
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Internal Communication Capability

NOPR
37. In the NOPR, the Commission raised the concern that Reliability
Standard COM-001-2 does not appear to carry forward an explicit
requirement to maintain adequate internal communications capabilities,
unlike the existing COM-001 standard, which states that each
reliability coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority
``shall provide adequate and reliable telecommunication facilities for
the exchange of Interconnection and operating information . . .
internally.'' \41\ The Commission stated that maintaining adequate
internal communications could be critical to reliability, pointing to
specific recommendations in the 2003 Blackout Report. The Commission
proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to COM-001-2, or to
develop a separate standard, ``that ensures that entities maintain
adequate internal communications capability, at least to the extent
that such communications could involve the issuance or receipt of
Operating Instructions or other communications that could have an
impact on reliability.'' \42\ Alternatively, the Commission suggested
that a requirement for internal communication capability could be
considered to be implicit in the proposed requirements for
communications capability between functional entities, even if those
functional entities reside within the same utility, and sought comment
on this suggested interpretation as well as the proposed directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 28 (quoting COM-001-1.1,
Requirement R1).
\42\ Id. P 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
38. NERC and most other commenters assert that Reliability Standard
COM-002-4 can and should be read to apply to internal communications
between functional entities within the same organization, as the
Commission suggested in the NOPR.\43\ NERC and NRECA also assert that
acceptance of this interpretation should eliminate the need for further
modification to COM-002-4.\44\ ITC comments that COM-001-2 should apply
to internal communications between different functional entities within
the same organization but only ``when those communications are
performed by means other than in direct, face-to-face situations.''
\45\ ITC continues, stating that ``[f]or entities performing multiple
functions that are located in close proximity such that direct, face-
to-face communication is available, ITC does not see a reliability need
for a requirement for Alternative Interpersonal Communication, and
believes the Standards should be interpreted as not requiring AIC in
these situations.'' \46\ ITC also advocates that, if the Commission
does not find that COM-001-2 as submitted includes these kinds of
internal communications, the standard ought to be modified to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ NERC Comments at 13; see also, e.g., NRECA Comments at 1,
Idaho Power Comments at 4, and Tri-State Comments at 1.
\44\ NERC Comments at 13; NRECA Comments at 1-2.
\45\ ITC Comments at 7.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. EEI/EPSA acknowledges that the approach taken in COM-001-2 is
different than the currently-effective COM standard with respect to
internal communications, but maintains that this change is consistent
with results-based standards. EEI/EPSA maintains that ``a result-based
standard should not need to specifically cite facility requirements or
the specific internal communication obligations,'' and maintains that
COM-001-2 properly specifies

[[Page 22391]]

communications capability ``at the Functional Entity level.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
40. We agree with NERC and other commenters that Reliability
Standard COM-001-2 applies to communications between functional
entities within a single organization. For example, COM-001-2,
Requirement R3, provides that ``each Transmission Operator shall have
Interpersonal Communication capability'' with the reliability
coordinator, and each balancing authority, distribution provider, and
generator operator ``within its Transmission Operator Area.'' We agree
with NERC, ITC and other commenters that a reasonable understanding of
Requirement R3 is that the transmission operator must have
Interpersonal Communication capability with a balancing authority,
distribution provider and/or generator operator within the same
organization. Moreover, we agree with ITC that the COM-001-2
requirements concerning Alternative Interpersonal Communication only
apply when those communications are performed by means other than
direct, face-to-face situations.
41. However, the application of COM-001-2 to different functional
entities within the same organization, as discussed above, does not
fully address our concern set forth in the NOPR regarding internal
communications.\48\ In particular, the NOPR explained that Requirement
R1.1 of currently-effective COM-001-1.1 provides that each reliability
coordinator, transmission operator, and balancing authority ``shall
provide adequate and reliable telecommunication facilities for the
exchange of Interconnection and operating information . . .
internally.'' This currently-effective Requirement applies more broadly
to internal communications, including internal communications within
the same functional entity. Thus, unlike the currently-effective
Reliability Standard, COM-001-2 does not address the adequacy of
internal telecommunications (or other internal communication systems)
that may have an adverse effect on reliability, even within a single
functional entity, including: (1) Communications between geographically
separate control centers within the same functional entity; and (2)
communications between a control center and field personnel. These
scenarios present a gap in reliability of the Bulk-Power System that
NERC should address. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the
FPA, we direct NERC to develop modifications to COM-001-2, or to
develop a new standard, to address our concerns regarding ensuring the
adequacy of internal communications capability whenever internal
communications could directly affect the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at PP 28-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Testing Requirements for Distribution Providers and Generator
Operators

NOPR
42. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that Reliability
Standard COM-001-2 did not include a requirement that distribution
providers and generator operators test or actively monitor their
telecommunications systems, but were merely required to consult with
each affected entity to determine a mutually agreeable action for
restoration whenever a failure is detected.\49\ The Commission asked
for comment on ``why generator operators and distribution providers
should not have some form of requirement to test or actively monitor
vital primary and emergency telecommunication facilities.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 31 (citing to COM-001-2,
Requirement R11).
\50\ Id, (citing System Restoration Reliability Standards, Order
No. 749, 134 FERC ] 61,215, at P 28 (2011)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
43. NERC and the other commenters on this issue maintain that there
is no need for a testing requirement for generator operators and
distribution providers comparable to that required for reliability
coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission operators, because
generator operators and distribution providers are required to maintain
only primary Interpersonal Communication capability, which is tested
through routine use.\51\ NERC further explains that its approach is
consistent with the Commission's statement in Order No. 693 that ``[w]e
expect the telecommunication requirements for all applicable entities
will vary according to their roles and that these requirements will be
developed under the Reliability Standards development process.'' \52\
NERC also explains that the standard drafting team found that the
obligation to detect and address failures in a primary communication
system, as set out in Requirement R11 of COM-001-2, is sufficient,
given ``the limited impact a failure might have on Distribution
Providers and Generator Operators overall.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ See, e.g., NERC Comments at 14 (``routine use is sufficient
to demonstrate functionality of this . . . primary capability'');
EEI/EPSA Comments at 5-6 (``a system in regular use would gain
little through routine testing''); and ISO/RTO Council Comments at
6-7 (``capability will be `tested' through regular use'').
\52\ NERC Comments at 14-15 (quoting Order No. 693, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,242 at P 487).
\53\ NERC Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
44. We are persuaded by the comments of NERC and others that
additional testing requirements for distribution providers and
generator operators are not necessary at this time. NERC and other
commenters assert that the primary Interpersonal Communication systems
used by a distribution provider or generator operator will effectively
be tested through routine use, and that any potential failures in a
given generator operator or distribution provider's external
communication system will not have a substantial impact on the Bulk-
Power System. In light of this explanation, as well as our recognition
in Order No. 693 that telecommunication requirements for applicable
entities will vary according to their roles, we decline to require any
additional testing requirements for distribution providers and
generator operators at this time.

D. Definition of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication

NOPR
45. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification on the
intended scope of the newly defined terms Interpersonal Communication
and Alternative Interpersonal Communication.\54\ The Commission noted
that NERC had explained the introduction of these terms as a means of
eliminating the ambiguity in the terms ``adequate and reliable'' and
``redundant and diversely routed'' as currently used in Requirements R1
and R1.4 of COM-001-1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 32. As previously noted, NERC
is proposing to define the terms, respectively, as follows:
Interpersonal Communication--Any medium that allows two or more
individuals to interact, consult, or exchange information.
Alternative Interpersonal Communication--Any Interpersonal
Communication that is able to serve as a substitute for, and does
not utilize the same infrastructure (medium) as, Interpersonal
Communication used for day-to-day operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

46. The Commission raised two concerns about the new terms as used
in proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-2. First, the Commission noted
that the definitions do not state a minimum expectation of
communication performance, such as speed and

[[Page 22392]]

quality.\55\ Second, the Commission asked for clarification as to
whether Interpersonal Communication includes mediums used directly to
exchange or transfer data, which communications appear to be covered
under the currently-approved version of COM-001.\56\ The Commission,
thus, asked for further explanation ``regarding acceptable (and
unacceptable) performance of communication for both Interpersonal and
Alternative Interpersonal Communications.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 33.
\56\ Id. As the Commission noted, COM-001-1.1, Requirement R1
addresses ``telecommunications facilities for the exchange of
Interconnection and operating information.''
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
47. With respect to minimum performance standards or specifications
for the required communications mediums, none of the commenters believe
such specifications are necessary or advisable. NERC maintains that
additional specifications are not necessary because the standard as
written requires applicable entities to have the working capability
needed to maintain reliability.\58\ EEI/EPSA agrees that performance
specifications are not necessary, and questions whether it is even
possible to set such standards given the diversity of systems used.\59\
ISO/RTO Council asserts that it would be inadvisable to include
technical specifications on the communication mediums required, as it
could result in the use of the least expensive medium that could
achieve compliance.\60\ Idaho Power suggests that the kinds of
measurable characteristics that might be appropriate for use to
establish minimum performance levels for data exchanges are not
available here, because the proposed COM standards do not include data
exchange. Tri-State G&T states that the most common expected mediums
for communication under the standard will likely be email and
telephone, and that there is no need to include minimum expectations of
speed or performance because ``all entities are focused on reliability
and would always use the fastest and most reliable means of
communication.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ NERC Comments at 4, 15-16.
\59\ EEI/EPSA Comments at 6-7.
\60\ ISO/RTO Council at 5. ISO/RTO Council also notes that its
members already have requirements in place with their stakeholders
on necessary technical requirements for voice and data exchange.
\61\ Tri-State G&T Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

48. With respect to the transfer of data as opposed to
communications between persons, all of the commenters to directly
address the issue acknowledge that proposed Reliability Standard COM-
001-2 is not intended to, and does not, cover data exchanges or
transfers. NERC (through its initial and supplemental comments) and
ISO/RTO Council maintain that COM-001-2 need not include requirements
regarding data transfer capability because such capability is covered
under other existing or proposed standards.
49. With respect to existing standards, NERC states that the
standard drafting team determined that IRO-010-1a and IRO-014-1
``provided the necessary mandatory Requirements to ensure proper data
exchange is occurring.'' \62\ ISO/RTO Council provides several
additional examples of existing Reliability Standards that address data
exchange and transfer capability, including BAL-004-2b, R14; IRO-002-2,
R1; and TOP-006-2, R1.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ NERC Comments at 16. See also ISO/RTO Council Comments at
5-6 (noting that the standard drafting team explained that data
communication is covered under Requirement R3 of IRO-010-1).
\63\ ISO/RTO Council Comments at 6, n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

50. With respect to standards under development, NERC asserts that
four proposed IRO and TOP standards, now approved by the Board,
``include specific coverage related to data exchange,'' and
``collectively require data exchange capability'' for reliability
coordinators, transmission operators, balancing authorities, generator
operators, and distribution providers.\64\ NERC describes the specific
requirements in proposed Reliability Standards TOP-001-3, IRO-010-2,
TOP-003-3, and IRO-002-4 that will address data exchange capabilities
and/or data exchange specifications for applicable functional entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ NERC Supp. Comments at 3. NERC identified these same four
standards in its Initial Comments, but provides a more detailed
discussion of the proposed standards and their status in its
Supplemental Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

51. EEI/EPSA and Idaho Power also maintain that the term
Interpersonal Communication does not cover data exchange, with EEI/EPSA
asserting that the phrase requires a system ``that enables effective
communications between two or more individuals.'' \65\ Moreover, EEI/
EPSA understands the term Alternative Interpersonal Communication to
require certain entities to have backup communications that do not
utilize the same infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ EEI/EPSA at 7. Similarly, Idaho Power states that the term
was intended to include voice and electronic messaging between
people, and exclude data exchanges, such as SCADA and metering data.
Idaho Power Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

52. ITC asserts that the definitions of Interpersonal Communication
and Alternative Interpersonal Communication ``could ostensibly be
interpreted to extend the Standard beyond verbal and written
communications and Operating Instructions to include the transmission
of electronic data between control systems that are monitored/used by
system operators.'' \66\ ITC warns that ``[i]f the Commission does
indeed intend the scope of the Standards to extend to such electronic
data transmission, the requirement for Alternative Interpersonal
Communication may not be achievable'' because ``[i]t may simply not be
possible to maintain a second pathway for the transmission of such
data, whether by dint of data format, system compatibility, or the
feasibility of installing a redundant system.'' \67\ ITC accordingly
recommends that if an alternative pathway for data transmission is
deemed necessary, then the Commission should retain the language from
COM-001-1 which requires ``redundant and diversely routed systems.''
\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ ITC Comments at 8.
\67\ Id.
\68\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
53. First, we are satisfied that technical specifications regarding
minimum levels of performance for the mediums used to satisfy the
requirements of COM-001-2 are not necessary at this time. In doing so,
we note NERC's explanation that the requirements in COM-001-2 are
``absolute'' and that entities must ``have the capability in place to
`establish Interpersonal Communication capabilities necessary to
maintain reliability.' '' \69\ Moreover, we are persuaded by the
commenters that setting performance criteria for the email and
telephonic communications at issue here is both impractical and
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ NERC Comments at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

54. Second, the NOPR raised concerns pertaining to whether COM-001-
2 addresses ``facilities that directly exchange or transfer data.''
\70\ In response, NERC states that data exchange capability is being
addressed in proposed IRO and TOP standards.\71\ Accordingly, we do not
make any determinations regarding data exchange capability in the
immediate rulemaking. Rather, based on NERC's explanation, we will
address any issues regarding

[[Page 22393]]

data exchange capability in the pending rulemaking pertaining to NERC's
proposed TOP and IRO Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ See NOPR, 148 FERC ] 61,210 at P 33.
\71\ See NERC Supplemental Filing at 2-3. On March 18, 2015,
NERC submitted a petition for approval of proposed Transmission
Operations and Interconnection Reliability Operations and
Coordination Reliability Standards, Docket No. RM15-15-000, pending
before the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement
55. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\72\ OMB's
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rules.\73\ Upon approval of a
collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections
of information unless the collections of information display a valid
OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
\73\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

56. The Commission solicited comments on the need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asked
that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be
supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates were
generated.
57. The Final Rule approves Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and
COM-002-4, as well as NERC's proposed retirement of currently-effective
Reliability Standards COM-001-1.1 and COM-002-2. Reliability Standard
COM-001-2 establishes Interpersonal Communication capability necessary
to maintain reliability, while Reliability Standard COM-002-4 improves
communications related to Operating Instructions, requiring issuers of
Operating Instructions to adopt predefined communications protocols and
requiring both issuers and recipients of Operating Instructions to use
three-part communications.
Public Reporting Burden: Reliability Standards COM-001-2 and COM-
002-4 do not require responsible entities to file information with the
Commission. However, the Reliability Standards require applicable
entities to develop and maintain certain information, subject to audit.
In particular, COM-001-2 requires that transmission operators,
balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, distribution
providers, and generator operators must maintain documentation of
Interpersonal Communication capability and designation of Alternate
Interpersonal Communication, as well as evidence of testing of the
Alternate Interpersonal Communication facilities. COM-002-4 requires
balancing authorities, distribution providers, reliability
coordinators, transmission operators, and generator operators to
develop and maintain documented communication protocols, and to be able
to provide evidence of training on the protocols and of their annual
assessment of the protocols. Additionally, all applicable entities
(balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, generator operators, and distribution providers) must be
able to provide evidence of three-part communication when issuing or
receiving an Operating Instruction during an Emergency.
Many of the record retention or information collection requirements
in COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 are translated in some form from the
currently-effective Reliability Standards (COM-001-1 and COM-002-2).
For these requirements, the Commission estimates a zero net change in
burden. Accordingly, our estimate below shows the increase in record-
retention or information collection burden, based on the new
requirements to:

(1) Develop communications protocols (a one-time burden under
COM-002-4, Requirement R1),
(2) maintain evidence of required training, assessments, and use
of three-part communications, as applicable (an on-going burden
under COM-002-4 Requirements R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6); and
(3) maintain evidence to demonstrate Interpersonal Communication
capability (a new, on-going burden for distribution providers and
generator operators under COM-001-2 Requirements R7 and R8).

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

\74\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information, as of March 19,
2015, for an electrical engineer ($65.34/hour for review and
documentation) and for an Information and Record Clerk ($33.42/hour
for record retention). These figures have been updated since
issuance of the NOPR, and are available at: https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000. The first row of the table (one-
time burden) is done by an engineer, and the latter three rows
(ongoing burden) are done by a file clerk.
\75\ This dollar burden figure in row 3 of this chart was
incorrectly stated in the NOPR, which led to an incorrect estimate
of the total dollar burden for the industry in row 5. Both estimates
as stated in the NOPR were higher than the corrected and updated
estimate reflected in this Final Rule.
\76\ No change is expected in the record-keeping burden under
COM-001-2 for reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators as compared to the currently-effective COM-
001 standard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number
Information collection Number and type of respondents of responses Total number Avg. burden & cost per Total annual burden hours &
requirement per respondent of responses response \74\ total annual cost \75\
(1)........................... (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4).................... (3)*(4) = (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(One-time) Development of 212........................... 1 212 8 hrs. & $522.72....... 1,696 hours & $110,816.64
Communication Protocols [COM- (BA, RC & TOP)................
002-4 R1].
(On-going) Maintain evidence of 1,217......................... 1 1,217 4 hrs. & $133.68....... 4,868 hours & $162,688.56
Interpersonal Communication (DP & GOP)....................
capability [COM-001-2 R7 and
R8].\76\
(On-going) Maintain evidence of 212........................... 1 212 8 hrs. & $267.36....... 1,696 hours & $56,680.32
training and assessments [COM- (BA, RC & TOP)................
002-4 R2, R4, R5 and R6].
(On-going) Maintain evidence of 1,217......................... 1 1,217 8 hrs. & $267.36....... 9,736 hours & $ 325,377.12
training [COM-002-4 R3, and R6]. (DP & GOP)....................

[[Page 22394]]

Total....................... .............................. .............. 2,858 ....................... 17,996 hours & $655,562.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System:
COM Reliability Standards.
Action: Proposed FERC-725V.
OMB Control No: 1902-0277.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One-time and ongoing.
Necessity of the Information: The approval of Reliability Standards
COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 implements the Congressional mandate of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's
Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the purpose of the Reliability
Standards is to establish Interpersonal Communication capability
necessary to maintain reliability, and to improve communications for
the issuance of Operating Instructions with predefined communications
protocols. The proposed Reliability Standards require entities to
maintain records subject to review by the Commission and NERC to ensure
compliance with the Reliability Standards.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to the Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System and
determined that the requirements are necessary to meet the statutory
provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These requirements conform
to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission
has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information requirements.
58. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
59. Comments concerning the information collections approved in
this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to
the Commission in these dockets and may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the
following email address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference
FERC-725V and the docket numbers of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Docket No. RM14-13-000) in your submission.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

60. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \77\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Reliability Standard COM-001-2 is expected to impose burdens for the
first time on 1,217 entities (i.e., distribution providers and
generator operators).\78\ Reliability Standard COM-002-4 may apply to
as many as 1,279 entities.\79\ Comparison of the applicable entities
with FERC's small business data indicates that approximately 934 of the
1,279 entities are small entities.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\78\ The number of small distribution providers required to
comply with the COM standards may decrease significantly. In March
2015, the Commission approved revisions to the NERC Rules of
Procedure to implement NERC's ``risk based registration'' program,
which raised the registry threshold for distribution providers from
a 25 MW to 75 MW peak load. North American Electric Reliability
Corp., 150 FERC ] 61,213 (2015).
\79\ The applicable entities are balancing authorities,
reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator
operators, and distribution providers. After accounting for entities
registered for more than one function, the total count is 1,279
entities.
\80\ The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for
what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under
one of several different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates,
the parent company, and subsidiaries. The possible categories for
the applicable entities have a size threshold ranging from 250
employees to 1,000 employees. We are using the 1000 employee
threshold for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

61. Reliability Standard COM-002-4 will serve to enhance
reliability by, among other things, requiring adoption of predefined
communication protocols, annual assessment of those protocols and
operating personnel's adherence thereto, training on the protocols, and
use of three-part communications. The Commission estimates that each
small balancing authority, reliability coordinator, and transmission
operator subject to Reliability Standard COM-002-4 will incur one-time
compliance costs of about $523 (i.e. development of communication
protocols), plus on-going annual costs of about $790 (i.e. performing
training and maintaining evidence of training and assessments).\81\ The
Commission estimates that each of the small distribution provider and
generator operator entities potentially subject to Reliability
Standards COM-001-2 and COM-002-4 will incur on-going annual costs of
about $887 (i.e. performing training and maintaining evidence of
interpersonal communication capability and of training).\82\ The
Commission does not consider the estimated costs per small entity to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ The ongoing annual costs for both paperwork and training
are based on (8 hours * $33.42) + (8 * $65.34) = $790.16 or
approximately $790.00.
\82\ The ongoing annual cost is based on (12 * $33.42) + (8 *
$60.70) = $886.64 or approximately $887.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Analysis

62. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\83\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\84\ The actions approved
herein fall within this

[[Page 22395]]

categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
\84\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

63. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (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.
64. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
65. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
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.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

66. This Final Rule is effective June 22, 2015.
67. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351
of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\85\
The Commission will submit the Final Rule to both houses of Congress
and to the General Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

68. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (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.

By direction of the Commission.
Issued: April 16, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09225 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.