Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22385 

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 (http://

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. 

The Commission orders: 

The Commission adopts the Policy 

Statement and supporting analysis 

contained in the body of this order. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: April 16, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

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 

Xcel Energy Companies 

[FR Doc. 2015–09226 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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

2NERC 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.).’’ 

3See NERC Petition at 3 (‘‘during Emergencies, 

operating personnel must use the documented 

communication protocols for three-part 

communications without exception.’’). 

4 16 U.S.C. at 824o(c) and (d). 

5See id. at 824o(e). 

6North 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). 

7See 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). 

8Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at 

P 508. 

9 Id. PP 531–535, 540. 

10The COM Reliability Standards are not attached 

to the Final Rule. The complete text of the two 

Reliability Standards is available on the 

Commission’s eLibrary document retrieval system 

in Docket No. RM14–13 and is posted on the ERO’s 

Web site, available at: http://www.nerc.com. 

11NERC Petition at 3 (quoting U.S.-Canada Power 

System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the 

August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and 

Canada: Causes and Recommendations at 3 (April 

2004) (Blackout Report), available at http://

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. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22387 

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. 

14NERC Petition at 18. 

15 Id. 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. 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

18 Id. at 25. 

19 Id. at 26. 

20See id. at 29. 

21 Id. at 39. 

22 Id. at 25–26. 

23Communications Reliability Standards, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 58709 (Sept. 30, 

2014), 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 (2014) (NOPR). 

24 Id. PP 22, 23. 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22389 

25See id. PP 25–27. 

26See 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. 

27NERC Comments at 8. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

30 Id. at 10. 

31 Id. at 11. 

32EEI/EPSA Comments at 3. 

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). 

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 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

36 ITC Comments at 5. 

37 Id. at 6. 

38See 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’’). 

39NERC Comments at 10–11. 

40Requirement 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. 

41NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 28 (quoting 

COM–001–1.1, Requirement R1). 

42 Id. P 30. 

43NERC Comments at 13; see also, e.g., NRECA 

Comments at 1, Idaho Power Comments at 4, and 

Tri-State Comments at 1. 

44NERC Comments at 13; NRECA Comments at 

1–2. 

45 ITC Comments at 7. 

46 Id. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22391 

47 Id. at 4–5. 

48See NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at PP 28–31. 

49NOPR, 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)). 

51See, 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’’). 

52NERC Comments at 14–15 (quoting Order No. 

693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 487). 

53NERC Comments at 14. 

54NOPR, 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

55NOPR, 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. 

58NERC Comments at 4, 15–16. 

59EEI/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. 

61Tri-State G&T Comments at 2. 

62NERC 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. 

64NERC 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. 

65EEI/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. 

66 ITC Comments at 8. 

67 Id. 

68 Id. at 9. 

69NERC Comments at 15–16. 

70See NOPR, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 at P 33. 

71See 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22393 

72 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012). 

73 5 CFR 1320.11 (2013). 

74The estimated hourly costs (salary plus 

benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) information, as of March 19, 2015, for an 

electrical engineer ($65.34/hour for review and 

documentation) and for an Information and Record 

Clerk ($33.42/hour for record retention). These 

figures have been updated since issuance of the 

NOPR, and are available at: http://bls.gov/oes/

current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000. The first row 

of the table (one-time burden) is done by an 

engineer, and the latter three rows (ongoing burden) 

are done by a file clerk. 

75This 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. 

76No 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. 

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 

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: 

Information collection requirement 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) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) 

(One-time) Development of Communication Protocols [COM–002–4 R1].212 ............................

(BA, RC & TOP) ........

1 212 8 hrs. & $522.72 1,696 hours & 

$110,816.64 

(On-going) Maintain evidence of Interpersonal Communication capability 

[COM–001–2 R7 and R8].76

1,217 .........................

(DP & GOP) ..............

1 1,217 4 hrs. & $133.68 4,868 hours & 

$162,688.56 

(On-going) Maintain evidence of training 

and assessments [COM–002–4 R2, 

R4, R5 and R6].

212 ............................

(BA, RC & TOP) ........

1 212 8 hrs. & $267.36 1,696 hours & 

$56,680.32 

(On-going) Maintain evidence of training 

[COM–002–4 R3, and R6].

1,217 .........................

(DP & GOP) ..............

1 1,217 8 hrs. & $267.36 9,736 hours & $ 

325,377.12 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

22394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

77 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

78The 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). 

79The 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. 

80The 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. 

81The ongoing annual costs for both paperwork 

and training are based on (8 hours * $33.42) + (8 

* $65.34) = $790.16 or approximately $790.00. 

82The ongoing annual cost is based on (12 * 

$33.42) + (8 * $60.70) = $886.64 or approximately 

$887.00. 

83Regulations 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). 

Information collection requirement 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) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) 

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 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22395 

85See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1 16 U.S.C. 824(o). 

2NERC 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. 

5Unscheduled 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. 

categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations. 

VI. Document Availability 

63. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

64. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the Internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 

this document is available on eLibrary 

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

65. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at 202– 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at 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. 

68. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Issued: April 16, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09225 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

Order No. 810 

Final Rule 

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES