[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16240-16250]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6778]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM10-15-000; Order No. 748]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for Interconnection Reliability
Operating Limits

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves three new Interconnection
Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards and seven
revised Reliability Standards related to Emergency Preparedness and
Operations, Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination,
and Transmission Operations. These Reliability Standards were submitted
to the Commission for approval 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 Reliability Standards
were designed to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or
cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the
interconnection by ensuring that the reliability coordinator has the
data necessary to assess its reliability coordinator area during the
operations horizon and that it takes prompt action to prevent or
mitigate instances of exceeding Interconnection Reliability.
    Operating Limits. The Commission also approves the addition of two
new terms to the NERC Glossary of Terms.
    In addition, the Commission approves NERC's proposed revisions to
Reliability Standards EOP-001-1, IRO-002-2, IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, TOP-
003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2, which remove requirements for the
reliability coordinator to monitor and analyze system operating limits
other than interconnection reliability operating limits.

DATES: Effective Date: This Rule will become effective May 23, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darrell Piatt (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A. Cory Lankford (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    William Edwards (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.

I. Background...............................................           3
    A. Mandatory Reliability Standards......................           3
    B. Order No. 693 Directives.............................           4
    C. NERC Petition........................................           7
        1. IRO-008-1........................................          11
        2. IRO-009-1........................................          15
        3. IRO-010-1a.......................................          16
    D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking........................          18
II. Discussion..............................................          21
    A. Division of Responsibilities for SOLs and IROLs......          22

        1. Continued Analysis of SOLs by Reliability                  26
         Coordinators.......................................
        2. Documented Methodology to Identify System                  33
         Operating Limit Information........................
        3. Current Practices for the Prevention and                   34
         Mitigation of SOLs and IROLs and the Monitoring
         Capability of the Reliability Coordinator..........
        4. Reliability Coordinator's Procedures for                   37
         Selecting the SOLs for Evaluation by the
         Interchange Distribution Calculator................
        5. Current Functional Model.........................          38
    B. Operational Analyses and Real-time Assessments.......          45
    C. Reliability Coordinator Actions to Operate Within              52
     IROLs..................................................
    D. IRO-010-1a...........................................          56
    E. Violation Severity Levels and Violation Risk Factors.          64
III. Information Collection Statement.......................          73
IV. Environmental Analysis..................................          78
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act...............................          79
VI. Document Availability...................................          80
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification..........          83

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer,
Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

Final Rule

Issued March 17, 2011.
    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves three new
Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination (IRO)
Reliability Standards and seven revised Reliability Standards related
to Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP), IRO, and Transmission
Operations (TOP). The proposed Reliability Standards were submitted to
the Commission for approval by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for developing and enforcing
mandatory Reliability Standards.\2\ These Reliability Standards were
designed to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading
outages that adversely impact the reliability of the interconnection by
ensuring that the reliability coordinator has the data necessary to
assess its reliability coordinator area during the operations horizon
and that it takes prompt action to prevent or mitigate instances of
exceeding Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROL).\3\ The
Commission also approves the addition of two new terms to the NERC
Glossary of Terms (NERC Glossary). In addition, the Commission approves
NERC's proposed revisions to Reliability Standards EOP-001-1, IRO-002-
2, IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, TOP-003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2, which
remove requirements for the reliability coordinator to monitor and
analyze system operating limits (SOL) \4\ other than IROLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
    \3\ NERC defines IROLs as the value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes,
Frequency or Volts) derived from, or a subset of the SOLs, which if
exceeded, could expose a widespread area of the bulk electric system
to instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages. See
NERC Glossary, available at http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
    \4\ NERC defines SOLs as the value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes,
Frequency or Volts) that satisfies the most limiting of the
prescribed operating criteria for a specific system configuration to
ensure operation within acceptable reliability criteria. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In addition, the Commission asks the ERO to evaluate certain
issues through ongoing standards development and working group projects
and to develop appropriate revisions as necessary. These issues regard
the scope of the reliability coordinator's responsibility under these
and other IRO Reliability Standards. In particular, the Commission
identifies, based on the comments received, certain issues regarding
the delineation of the responsibility of the reliability coordinator to
analyze, monitor and communicate to other operating entities the class
of SOLs identified as ``grid-impactive'' SOLs by NERC.

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are
subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards are enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.

B. Order No. 693 Directives

    4. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 initial Reliability Standards filed by NERC,
including the currently-effective IRO Reliability Standards.\5\ Under
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to the IRO Reliability Standards to address certain
issues identified by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. With respect to IRO-001-1, the Commission directed the ERO to
develop modifications to eliminate the regional reliability
organization as an applicable entity.\6\ The Commission also directed
the ERO to modify IRO-002-1 to require a minimum set of capabilities
that must be made available to the reliability coordinator to ensure
that a reliability coordinator has the capabilities it needs to perform
its functions.\7\ With respect to IRO-003-2, the Commission directed
the ERO to develop a modification to create criteria to define the term
``critical facilities'' in a reliability coordinator's area and its
adjacent systems.\8\ The Commission also directed the ERO to modify
IRO-004-1 to require the next-day analysis to identify control actions
that can be implemented and effective within 30 minutes after a
contingency. In addition, the Commission directed the ERO to consider
adding Measures and Levels of Non-Compliance to Reliability Standards
IRO-004-1 and IRO-005-1 that are commensurate with the magnitude,
duration, frequency and causes of the violations and whether these
occur during normal or contingency conditions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 896.
    \7\ Id. P 908.
    \8\ Id. P 914.
    \9\ Id. P 935. NERC has subsequently replaced Levels of Non-
Compliance with Violation Severity Levels. See Order on Violation
Severity Levels Proposed by the Electric Reliability Organization,
123 FERC ] 61,284 (Violation Severity Level Order), order on reh'g,
125 FERC ] 61,212 (2008).

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

    6. The Commission also directed the ERO to conduct a survey on IROL
practices and actual operating experiences by requiring reliability
coordinators to report any violations of IROLs, their causes, the date
and time, the durations and magnitudes in which actual operations
exceed IROLs to the ERO on a monthly basis for one year beginning two
months after the effective date of Order No. 693.\10\ On October 31,
2008, NERC filed the results of its year-long survey with the
Commission.\11\ On February 8, 2009, NERC supplemented those results in
a second filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. P 951.
    \11\ NERC, Compliance Filing, Docket No. RM06-16-006 (filed Oct.
31, 2008).
    \12\ NERC, Compliance Filing, Docket No. RM06-16-006 (filed Feb.
8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NERC Petition

    7. On December 31, 2009, NERC submitted a petition to the
Commission (NERC Petition) \13\ seeking approval of proposed
Reliability Standards IRO-008-1, IRO-009-1, and IRO-010-1a. Under these
Reliability Standards, reliability coordinators must analyze and
monitor IROLs within their Wide-Area \14\ to prevent instability,
uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the
reliability of the interconnection. These Reliability Standards do not
require the reliability coordinator to analyze and monitor SOLs other
than IROLs or to take preventive action to avoid or mitigate SOL
violations within their reliability coordinator area. In developing the
proposed IRO Reliability Standards, NERC determined that it was
necessary to retire or modify certain requirements from several
existing Reliability Standards. Therefore, NERC proposed revisions to
Reliability Standards EOP-001-1,\15\ IRO-002-2, IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3,
TOP-003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2, which remove requirements for the
reliability coordinator to monitor and analyze SOLs other than IROLs.
NERC also requests approval of new definitions ``Operational Planning
Analysis'' and ``Real-time Assessment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Dec. 31, 2009
Petition for Approval of Proposed New and Revised Reliability
Standards for Operating Within Interconnection Operating Limits.
    \14\ The term ``Wide-Area'' is defined in the NERC Glossary,
approved by the Commission. As defined, Wide-Area includes not only
the reliability coordinators' area, but also critical flow and
status information from adjacent reliability coordinator areas as
determined by detailed system studies to allow the calculation of
IROLs. See NERC Glossary available at http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
    \15\ Concurrent with its Petition in this Docket, NERC filed a
petition in Docket No. RM10-16-000 seeking approval of certain
Emergency Preparedness and Operations Reliability Standards. NERC,
Petition for Approval of Three Emergency Preparedness and Operations
Reliability Standards, Docket No. RM10-16-000 (filed Dec. 31, 2009).
As part of its Petition in RM10-16-000, NERC proposed to retire
Requirement R3.4 of EOP-001-0. Each petition proposes unique changes
to EOP-001-0 reflecting the distinct issues addressed by the
respective Reliability Standards drafting teams. In this Final Rule,
the Commission is addressing Version 2 of EOP-001 contained in
Exhibit B of the NERC Petition which reflects both the IRO and the
EOP proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. These IRO Reliability Standards together with the proposed
revisions to existing Reliability Standards divide responsibility for
SOLs and IROLs between reliability coordinators and transmission
operators according to the Functional Model.\16\ In its Petition, NERC
explains that having two entities with the same primary responsibility
is not supported by the Functional Model.\17\ However, NERC notes that
these IRO Reliability Standards should not imply that the reliability
coordinator will not look at its future operations with respect to
specific SOLs.\18\ NERC states that the reliability coordinator must
look at its future operations with respect to specific SOLs to ensure
that their transmission operators are taking actions at appropriate
times, but the primary responsibility for SOLs rests with the
transmission operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NERC, Reliability Functional Model, version 5, at 30 (Dec.
2009), available at http://www.nerc.com/files/Functional_Model_V5_Final_2009Dec1.pdf (NERC Functional Model).
    \17\ In its comments, NERC cites specific tasks outlined in the
Functional Model for the respective duties of the reliability
coordinator and transmission operator with respect to SOLs and
IROLs. NERC Comments at 14.
    \18\ NERC Petition at 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. NERC explains that, under the new IRO Reliability Standards, the
reliability coordinator retains overall visibility of all operations
within its Wide-Area view, including some SOLs, although the
transmission operator is primarily responsible for actions related to
SOLs.\19\ NERC states that the IRO Reliability Standards were developed
in support of the authority and assignment of tasks in the Functional
Model.\20\ NERC explains that under the Functional Model, while
reliability coordinators will assign their transmission operators tasks
associated with IROLs, the reliability coordinator has ultimate
responsibility for these tasks, and the reliability coordinator is
sanctioned if these tasks are not performed as required by the
Reliability Standards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id. at 78.
    \20\ Id. at 7-9.
    \21\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. NERC further explains that, in a similar fashion, the
Functional Model assigns responsibility for SOLs that are not IROLs to
the transmission operator. But, NERC states, this too is a shared
responsibility.\22\ NERC states that, where the Transmission Operator
has primary responsibility for developing the SOLs within its
transmission operator area, the transmission operator may request the
assistance of its reliability coordinator in developing these SOLs. In
addition, NERC points out that reliability coordinators are responsible
for ensuring that transmission operators develop SOLs for its
reliability coordinator area in accordance with a methodology developed
by the reliability coordinator.\23\ NERC states that the transmission
operator must share its SOLs with its reliability coordinator, and the
reliability coordinator must share any SOLs it develops with its
transmission operator. NERC also states that the reliability
coordinator monitors the status of some, but not all, SOLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 9.
    \23\ NERC Reliability Standard FAC-011-1, Requirement R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. IRO-008-1
    11. Reliability Standard IRO-008-1 has the stated purpose of
preventing instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages
that adversely impact the reliability of the interconnection by
ensuring that the bulk electric system is assessed during the
operations horizon. The proposed Reliability Standard applies to
reliability coordinators. IRO-008-1 requires the reliability
coordinator to use analyses and assessments as methods of achieving the
stated goal. The Reliability Standard requires analysis of the
reliability coordinator's Wide-Area ahead of time and during real-time.
It also requires communication with the entities that need to take
specific operational actions based on the analyses and assessments.
    12. Reliability Standard IRO-008-1 contains three requirements.
Requirement R1 requires each reliability coordinator to perform an
Operational Planning Analysis to assess whether the planned operations
for the next day within its Wide-Area will exceed any of its IROLs
during anticipated normal and contingency event conditions. Requirement
R2 requires the reliability coordinator to perform a Real-Time
Assessment at least once every 30 minutes to determine if its Wide Area
is exceeding any IROLs or is expected to exceed any IROLs. Requirement
R3 requires a reliability coordinator to share the results of an
Operational

Planning Analysis or Real-Time Assessment that indicates the need for
specific operational actions to prevent or mitigate an instance of
exceeding an IROL with those entities that are expected to take those
actions.
    13. NERC also requests approval of two new terms that appear in
IRO-008-1: ``Operational Planning Analysis'' and ``Real-time
Assessment.'' Operational Planning Analysis is defined as:

    An analysis of the expected system conditions for the next day's
operation. (That analysis may be performed either a day ahead or as
much as 12 months ahead.) Expected system conditions include things
such as load forecast(s), generation output levels, and known system
constraints (transmission facility outages, generator outages,
equipment limitations, etc.).

NERC states that the definition was designed to provide greater
specificity regarding the day-ahead study.
    14. The proposed term ``Real-time Assessment'' is defined as ``[a]n
examination of existing and expected system conditions, conducted by
collecting and reviewing immediately available data.'' NERC states that
the purpose of the new term is to assure that the reliability
coordinator is required to conduct a real-time assessment, including
situations in which the reliability coordinator is operating without
its primary analysis facilities and has implemented the work-around
requirements of IRO-002-2, Requirement R8.
2. IRO-009-1
    15. As proposed, Reliability Standard, IRO-009-1 is designed to
prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that
adversely impact the reliability of the interconnection by ``ensuring
prompt action to prevent or mitigate instances of exceeding [IROLs].''
Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-009-1 applies only to reliability
coordinators.
3. IRO-010-1a
    16. NERC proposes the addition of a new Reliability Standard, IRO-
010-1a \24\ to the current suite of IRO Reliability Standards. IRO-010-
1a is designed to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation, or
cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the
interconnection by mandating that the reliability coordinator have the
data it needs to monitor and assess the operation of its reliability
coordinator area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Because the interpretation for IRO-010-1 was completed
before the filing of IRO-010-1, NERC requests Commission approval of
IRO-010-1a, which includes the standard as interpreted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The requirements in the Reliability Standard specify a formal
request process for the reliability coordinator to explicitly identify
the data and information it needs for reliability; and require the
entities with the data to provide it as requested. The Reliability
Standard applies to the reliability coordinator and to the other
functional entities that must supply data to the reliability
coordinator.\25\ This includes entities that have been identified as
owners, users, or operators of the Bulk-Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The requirements in the standard are specifically
applicable to the following functional entities: (1) Reliability
coordinator[s]; (2) balancing authority; (3) generator owner; (4)
generator operator; (5) interchange authority; (6) load-serving
entity; (7) transmission operator; and (8) transmission owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    18. On November 18, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standards
IRO-008-1, IRO-009-1, and IRO-010-1a; revised Reliability Standards
EOP-001-1, IRO-002-2, IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, TOP-003-1, TOP-005-2, and
TOP-006-2; and the two new NERC Glossary terms.
    19. In the NOPR, the Commission agreed with NERC that it is
appropriate to develop requirements for Reliability Standards that
offer a clear division of responsibilities among reliability
coordinators and transmission operators. In addition, the Commission
sought ERO and public comment to ensure that the proposed Reliability
Standards will not create a reliability gap by the inappropriate
division of responsibilities for analyzing, monitoring and resolving
SOLs and IROLs between transmission operators and reliability
coordinators respectively.
    20. In response to the NOPR, NERC and a number of parties filed
comments. PJM Interconnection L.L.C., ISO New England, New York
Independent System Operator, Inc., California Independent System
Operation Corporation and Southwest Power Pool submitted joint comments
(Joint Commenters). The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), and
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) also submitted timely
comments. American Electric Power Service Corp. (AEP) filed comments
one day out-of-time.

II. Discussion

    21. The Commission hereby adopts its NOPR proposals and approves
new Reliability Standards IRO-008-1, IRO-009-1, and IRO-010-1a; revised
Reliability Standards EOP-001-1, IRO-002-2, IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, TOP-
003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2; and the two new NERC Glossary terms:
``Operational Planning Analysis'' and ``Real-time Assessment.'' In
approving these Reliability Standards, the Commission concludes that
they are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. These Reliability Standards serve an
important reliability purpose in seeking to prevent instability,
uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the
reliability of the interconnection by ensuring that the reliability
coordinator has the data necessary to assess its reliability
coordinator area during the operations horizon and that it takes prompt
action to prevent or mitigate instances of exceeding IROLs. Moreover,
they clearly identify the entities to which they apply and contain
clear and enforceable requirements. Commenters addressed many of the
Commission concerns discussed in the NOPR and in some areas the ERO has
indicated that it is continuing to study some issues related to the
Commission concerns. The Commission encourages the ERO, applying its
technical expertise, to continue such reviews and make any necessary
changes to applicable Reliability Standards.

A. Division of Responsibilities for SOLs and IROLs

    22. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on a number of
issues related to NERC's division of responsibilities for SOLs and
IROLs between reliability coordinators and transmission operators. NERC
acknowledges in its Petition that the transmission operator must
develop and share its SOLs with its reliability coordinator, and the
reliability coordinator must share any SOLs it develops with its
transmission operator.\26\ NERC also states that it is currently
working on a project to identify a subset of SOLs, other than IROLs,
that the transmission operator and reliability coordinator must
continuously analyze and monitor.\27\ Therefore, in the NOPR, the
Commission sought comment on whether there is a need for reliability
coordinators to continue to analyze, in addition to continuing to
monitor and coordinate data on, SOLs other than

IROLs.\28\ The Commission also sought comment on whether the
reliability coordinator should have a documented methodology for
identifying the SOL information it needs to fulfill its
responsibilities for day-ahead analysis, monitoring and real-time
assessments, and operational control within the reliability
coordinator's area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NERC Petition at 77.
    \27\ NERC identifies this as ``Project 2007-03: Real-time
Operations,'' available at http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/Real-time_Operations_Project_2007-03.html.
    \28\ Under NERC FAC-011-2, reliability coordinators must have a
documented methodology for use in developing SOLs within its
reliability coordinator area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. The Commission requested information from NERC, reliability
coordinators, and other interested entities on the current practices of
reliability coordinators and transmission operators with respect to
coordinating operational responsibilities for monitoring, day ahead and
real-time assessments. The Commission also asked for comments on Bulk-
Power System operations related to SOLs and IROLs, on the practical
division of responsibilities for preventing and mitigating SOL and IROL
violations, and the monitoring capabilities of the reliability
coordinator with respect to IROLs as well as other SOLs. Additionally,
the Commission asked whether a reliability coordinator can provide an
accurate assessment of the Bulk-Power System to its transmission
operators on a Wide-Area basis, without evaluating: (1) The operating
environment of SOLs that will impact the transmission operators within
the reliability coordinator's areas; (2) SOLs that have the potential
to become IROLs; and, (3) the existing IROLs within the reliability
coordinator area. The Commission further sought comment as to whether a
transmission operator can provide reliable operating assessments or
make reliable operating instructions on an SOL that is on the border
between two different transmission operator's areas. The Commission
also requested comment on whether the reliability coordinator should
have responsibility to monitor certain SOLs other than IROLs, and
whether such a responsibility would place an unreasonable burden on
reliability coordinators.
    24. The Commission noted that IRO-006-4.1 requires the reliability
coordinator to model SOLs and IROLs in the Interchange Distribution
Calculator (IDC) to perform the Transmission Loading Relief procedures.
We sought comment on how reliability coordinators in the Eastern
Interconnection select the SOLs for evaluation in the IDC and the
extent of any burden this has caused the reliability coordinator.
    25. Finally, the Commission also sought comments from NERC and the
public as to how the current Functional Model represents the
delineation of assessment and operating responsibilities between the
reliability coordinator and transmission operator with respect to SOLs
and IROLs.
Comments
1. Continued Analysis of SOLs by Reliability Coordinators
    26. NERC states in its comments, that the proposed IRO Reliability
Standards appropriately distinguish which entity has primary
responsibility for SOLs. Further, Bulk-Power System reliability
practices assign responsibilities for analyzing and resolving
conditions to the entities closest to it, so that the entity with the
closest eye to the condition can quickly assess and resolve it. NERC
asserts that it is appropriate for transmission operators to maintain
primary responsibility for SOLs, and for reliability coordinators to
maintain primary responsibility for IROLs. NERC also explains that,
while SOLs are typically associated with the prevention of facility
damage or the accelerated degradation of equipment life, only a subset
of SOLs are used to analyze and monitor local area reliability and,
therefore, the proposed IRO standards are silent on the reliability
coordinator's responsibility with respect to SOLs.
    27. NERC notes in its Petition, that the proposed Reliability
Standards ``should not imply that the Reliability Coordinator will not
look at its future operations with respect to specific SOLs.'' \29\
NERC also states that ``[t]he Reliability Coordinator retains the
overall visibility of all operations within its Wide-Area view,
including some SOLs, although the transmission operator is primarily
responsible for actions related to SOLs.'' \30\ NERC also notes that
the reliability coordinator can monitor the transmission operator's
actions to resolve SOLs and provides, as an example, that the
reliability coordinator can study real-time operating trends to help
determine whether an asset is trending toward a ``grid-impactive SOL.''
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NERC Petition at 9.
    \30\ NERC Petition at 10.
    \31\ NERC Comments at 7. NERC does not offer a definition of the
term ``grid-impactive SOL,'' but we understand it to mean an SOL
that the reliability coordinator monitor so that it does not develop
into an IROL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. In its comments, NERC provides the results of a survey
conducted in response to the NOPR in which each of the nine reliability
coordinators in the Eastern Interconnection responded that, for SOLs
that it monitors, the SOLs were developed in a coordinated fashion with
the transmission operators in its area. The survey responses did not
suggest that any transmission operator withheld important SOL
information from reliability coordinators, nor did any reliability
coordinator indicate that transmission operators were not willing to
work with the reliability coordinators in monitoring SOLs for Bulk-
Power System reliability. NERC contends that this survey demonstrates
that current operating practices are effective to ensure that
reliability coordinators are able to obtain sufficient information from
transmission operators in order to analyze and monitor certain SOLs
other than IROLs.
    29. NERC also notes that, since the completion of the proposed IRO
standards, the industry has been working to improve the clarity of
Reliability Standard requirements regarding the transmission operator's
primary responsibility for SOLs through the Real-time Operations
Standard Drafting Team (Project 2007-03). For example, NERC explains
that the Standard Drafting Team has proposed to add a requirement to
TOP-001-2 that would require each transmission operator to inform its
reliability coordinator of all SOLs which, while not IROLs, have been
identified by the transmission operator as supporting its local area
reliability based on its assessment of its Operational Planning
Analysis. NERC states that, by using tools that properly model Wide-
Area conditions, the reliability coordinators are able to identify and
help resolve lower-level issues that may not explicitly be included in
the reliability coordinator modeling capabilities. EEI supports NERC's
comments to the NOPR and believes that the Commission should encourage
the NERC reliability coordinators working group to engage these issues
with NERC stakeholders, especially the NERC Planning and Operating
Committees.
    30. The Joint Commenters support the proposed primary division of
responsibilities for SOLs and IROLs between reliability coordinators
and transmission operators. They contend, though, that the proposed
division should not be interpreted as implying that a reliability
coordinator should not monitor any SOLs. The Joint Commenters further
contend that it was not intended that the proposed Reliability
Standards would remove all responsibility for SOLs from the reliability
coordinator, but to establish a clear distinction of responsibilities
and authority. The Joint Commenters state that they would not support a
formal

requirement that would assign primary responsibility for analyzing and
resolving SOLs to a reliability coordinator since the primary
responsibility is correctly assigned to the transmission operator that
is most familiar with their respective operating limits and local Bulk-
Power System characteristics.
    31. Midwest ISO states that it is necessary for reliability
coordinators to analyze, monitor, and coordinate some SOLs other than
IROLs and that the Reliability Standards should reflect this best
practice. Midwest ISO believes the Commission should encourage the
efforts currently underway at NERC towards the development of
Reliability Standards addressing the role of reliability coordinators
with regard to analyzing SOLs, other than IROLs, that are important to
the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.
    32. AEP states that it generally supports the proposed Reliability
Standards but that it agrees with concerns raised by the Commission
that if reliability coordinators are not monitoring other SOLs, there
is a potential gap in monitoring for SOLs that have the potential to
become IROLs. AEP argues that performing an annual IROL identification
would be insufficient because it could miss some opportunities to
identify these potentially new IROLs when they could be material. AEP
asserts that, at a minimum, reliability coordinators should be required
to be involved in SOLs that could border two different transmission
operators' areas to ensure the activities are appropriately
coordinated. AEP states that reliability coordinators and transmission
operators should develop this subset of SOLs through joint analysis, or
agreement. AEP requests that the Commission direct NERC to develop a
modification to proposed Reliability Standards EOP-001-1, IRO-002-2,
IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, TOP-003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2, to require
reliability coordinators to work together with transmission operators
in developing and monitoring SOLs that border multiple transmission
operators' areas.
2. Documented Methodology To Identify System Operating Limit
Information
    33. NERC asserts that, because proposed Reliability Standard IRO-
008-1 requires reliability coordinators to use tools to model
transmission and generation assets based on ratings provided by asset
owners, it is unnecessary to impose an additional requirement that the
reliability coordinator have a documented methodology for identifying
the SOL information it needs because the systems and controls in place
already provide the information needed by the reliability coordinators.
The Joint Commenters also believe that such a methodology is
unnecessary because, in its defined role, a reliability coordinator
already will have access to, and be provided with, the appropriate set
of SOLs from the transmission operator.
3. Current Practices for the Prevention and Mitigation of SOLs and
IROLs and the Monitoring Capability of the Reliability Coordinator
    34. NERC states that current practices give the reliability
coordinators the ability to provide assessments of the Bulk-Power
System to their transmission operators on a Wide-Area basis. NERC
believes it is unnecessary to require reliability coordinators to have
additional responsibility to monitor SOLs other than IROLs. NERC also
notes that there are checks in place that allow the reliability
coordinator to monitor SOLs that could turn into IROLs. As an example,
NERC points out that IRO-010-1a requires reliability coordinators to
conduct Operational Planning Analyses and Real-Time Assessments to
identify any IROLs that may be exceeded.
    35. NERC states that the electric power industry is predicated on
interdependencies. NERC describes the interdependency of transmission
operators and reliability coordinators as enabling the reliability
coordinator both to control IROLs and flows, and to be aware of local
issues, giving the reliability coordinator the ability to monitor SOLs
that may become IROLs within the reliability coordinators areas. NERC
further explains that it is working on Project 2007-03--Real-Time
Operations to develop proposed revisions to the TOP standards that
require a transmission operator to perform Operational Planning
Analyses for its transmission operator area. NERC states that Project
2007-03 is considering revisions to the Reliability Standards that
would require observation of SOL limits in adjoining areas.
    36. The Joint Commenters state that the proposed IRO Reliability
Standards hold reliability coordinators to the proper assessment of
information required to provide accurate assessments on a Wide-Area
basis. The Joint Commenters also caution that ``accurate assessments''
do not equate to precise results and the Commission should refrain from
mandating that reliability coordinators provide accurate assessments.
4. Reliability Coordinator's Procedures for Selecting the SOLs for
Evaluation by the Interchange Distribution Calculator
    37. NERC states that reliability coordinators in the Eastern
Interconnection select which SOLs to evaluate in the interchange
distribution calculator based on information received from the
transmission operators indicating that the transmission operator has a
facility that is approaching or exceeding its SOL and/or IROL. NERC
states that the interchange distribution calculator is a congestion
management tool that helps the reliability coordinators deal with
transmission constraints. In the survey conducted by NERC of
reliability coordinators, one reliability coordinator responded that it
publishes most of its information for use by any entity that may wish
to use the information in its reliability assessments. Another
reliability coordinator responded that it does not enter SOLs in its
area into the interchange distribution calculator, but flowgates are
entered into the interchange distribution calculator that may have SOLs
or IROLs associated with them. Entering the flowgates allows an entity
to determine if external schedules are impacting the flowgate.
5. Current Functional Model
    38. NERC argues that Version 5 of the NERC Functional Model makes a
clear distinction between the duties of the reliability coordinator and
transmission operator with respect to SOLs and IROLs in certain task
descriptions.\32\ Similarly, the Joint Commenters state that the latest
NERC Functional Model divides reliability components and allocates them
to ``unique'' baskets of tasks which include a fundamental reliability
task to do Wide-Area analysis and another task for local analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See NERC Functional Model at 31, 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    39. As we stated in the NOPR, we believe that it is appropriate for
Reliability Standards requirements to offer a clear division of
responsibilities among reliability coordinators and transmission
operators. The preponderance of comments to the NOPR supports
Commission approval of the Reliability Standards as proposed by NERC,
including the proposed division of responsibilities. For the reasons
described below, we approve the division of responsibility for SOLs and
IROLs among transmission operators and reliability coordinators as
expressed in the proposed Reliability Standards.
    40. NERC and others suggest that these Reliability Standards are
not

intended to remove all responsibility for the analysis and monitoring
SOLs from the reliability coordinator. We agree. These Reliability
Standards generally establish a clear distinction of primary
responsibility for SOLs and IROLs between the transmission operator and
reliability coordinator respectively. As NERC notes, however, the
reliability coordinator will continue to have the ability and the
responsibility to analyze and monitor SOLs that could turn into IROLs.
For example, Requirements R5 and R6 of Reliability Standard IRO-002-2
require the reliability coordinator to monitor the important elements
that could be critical to SOLs and IROLs within the reliability
coordinator's area and surrounding reliability coordinator areas. In
addition, the proposed IRO Reliability Standards require the
reliability coordinator to conduct Operational Planning Analyses and
Real-time Assessments of its reliability coordinator area. As NERC
explained, the Operational Planning Analyses look at the expected
system conditions and potential reliability impacts, with a focus on
any impacts that affect the Wide-Area. Although a transmission operator
lacks the tools to predict the impact on the surrounding transmission
operator areas due to any changes in flow between inter-area
facilities, a reliability coordinator addresses these facilities in its
Wide-Area modeling capabilities.
    41. As the Commission noted in its NOPR, Reliability Standard IRO-
002-2 continues to require each reliability coordinator to monitor SOLs
other than IROLs both within its reliability coordinator area and in
surrounding reliability coordinator areas. Specifically, under
Requirement R4 of IRO-002-2, each reliability coordinator must have
detailed real-time monitoring capability of its reliability coordinator
area and sufficient monitoring capability of its surrounding
reliability coordinator areas to ensure that potential or actual SOL or
IROL violations are identified and analyzed. In addition, under
Requirement R5, each reliability coordinator must monitor bulk electric
system elements such as generators, transmission lines, buses,
transformers and breakers that could result in SOL or IROL violations
within its reliability coordinator area. Further, as the Commission
noted in the NOPR, the reliability coordinator must resolve potential
or actual violations of SOL ratings by implementing a local or area-
wide transmission loading relief procedure under Reliability Standard
IRO-006-4.1.
    42. Nevertheless, as noted by NERC and other commenters, there
exists a subset of ``grid-impactive'' SOLs other than IROLs that the
Commission believes may warrant closer analysis by the reliability
coordinator, in addition to the analysis being conducted by the
transmission operator, that focuses on whether these particular ``grid-
impactive'' SOLs could become IROLs. The Commission believes that there
can be considerable benefit derived from some overlap in the
responsibility for analyzing and monitoring these ``grid-impactive''
SOLs since, by definition, every IROL emanated from an SOL. While the
proposed Reliability Standards continue to commit the reliability
coordinator to the analysis and monitoring of SOLs that may become
IROLs, a subset of SOLs, such as these ``grid-impactive'' SOLs, may
deserve a more defined analysis and monitoring role on the part of the
reliability coordinator.
    43. We acknowledge NERC's and industry's continuing efforts to
improve the clarity of standard requirements regarding SOLs through the
Real-time Operations Standard Drafting Team (Project 2007-03). We
believe that the issues concerning the analysis and monitoring of
``grid-impactive'' SOLs that we note here can be raised and considered
in this or other ongoing projects. NERC comments that it is working on
Project 2007-03 to develop revisions to the TOP Reliability Standards
that require transmission operators to perform operational planning
analyses for their local areas. NERC also comments that this project is
also considering revisions that would require that SOL limits in
adjoining areas be observed. In addition, there are other open
projects, such as Project 2006-06--Reliability Coordination, which is
analyzing appropriate reliability coordinator functions and
responsibilities. In consideration of these ongoing efforts, we will
not direct specific modifications to these Reliability Standards and,
rather, accept NERC's commitment to exercise its technical expertise to
study these issues and develop appropriate revisions to applicable
Standards as may be necessary.
    44. Because the study and monitoring of SOLs and IROLs is an issue
at the very core of Bulk-Power System reliability, the Commission
agrees with EEI that the NERC Reliability Coordinators Working Group
should engage the issues raised in this proceeding with NERC
stakeholders, including the NERC Planning and Operating committees, to
determine whether a need exists to further refine the delineation of
responsibilities between the reliability coordinator and transmission
operator for analyzing a class of ``grid-impactive'' SOLs. Depending on
the results of that review, we further encourage NERC, working through
its standard development process, to develop appropriate modifications
to these and any other related Reliability Standards as necessary.

B. Operational Analyses and Real-time Assessments

    45. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on the prudence of
using an Operational Planning Analysis up to twelve months old. The
Commission asked whether this timeframe is reasonable or whether the
timeframe should be shorter to ensure that the analysis is not
outdated. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether the
definition should include measurable criteria to determine whether it
is appropriate to use an existing analysis.
    46. Further, the Commission requested comments on the meaning of
``immediately available data'' within the proposed definition of the
NERC Glossary definition of Real-Time Assessment. The Commission
proposed to direct NERC to modify the definition of ``Real-time
Assessment'' to specify that the type of data to be relied upon by a
reliability coordinator in conducting a Real-time Assessment must be
based on adequate analysis capabilities such as state estimation, pre-
and post-contingency analysis capabilities (thermal, stability, and
voltage), and wide-area overview displays referenced in Requirement R6
of IRO-002-2.
Comments
    47. In response to the Commission's questions regarding the use of
an existing Operational Planning Analysis, NERC states that it is
unlikely that a reliability coordinator would deliberately rely on an
Operational Planning Analysis that does not reflect its expected system
conditions. NERC asserts that a reliability coordinator will rely on a
twelve-month old operational planning analysis only if system
conditions have not changed over that time period. NERC states that the
proposed definition of Operational Planning Analysis was developed,
based on stakeholder comments, to apply not only to studies conducted
for the day ahead, but also for future use in possibly developing
requirements for seasonal studies. Thus, NERC explains, the definition
includes the option of performing an Operational Planning Analysis up
to twelve months ahead. NERC further explains that the

definition includes key elements that provide measurable criteria in
assessing an entity's Operational Planning Analysis.
    48. In response to the Commission's questions regarding the
proposed definition of Real-time Assessment, NERC and the Joint
Commenters state that the industry is currently working towards
consensus on the set of data and capabilities the reliability
coordinators need to perform their tasks via the Real-time Reliability
Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities Standards Development Team
(Project 2009-02). Accordingly, NERC asks the Commission to refrain
from directing modifications pending completion of the project.
Commission Determination
    49. The Commission approves the definitions of ``Operational
Planning Analysis'' and ``Real-time Assessment'' without modification.
    50. The Commission agrees with NERC that the reliability
coordinator should rely on a twelve-month old Operational Planning
Analysis study only if system conditions have not changed from those
originally studied. Consistent with the views of NERC, we expect that
reliability coordinators will rely on Operational Planning Analysis
that reflect expected system conditions. Accordingly, we accept the
definition as proposed.
    51. Similarly, we find it is unnecessary to direct NERC to modify
the definition of ``Real-time Assessment'' to specify that the type of
data to be relied upon by a reliability coordinator in conducting a
Real-time Assessment as proposed in the NOPR. Instead, the Commission
will allow industry to complete Project 2009-02, which is working
towards consensus on the set of data and capabilities the reliability
coordinators need to perform their tasks. We expect NERC to use its
technical expertise to develop any modifications to the definition of
Real-time Assessment as may be necessary as a result of this ongoing
project.

C. Reliability Coordinator Actions To Operate Within IROLs

    52. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on whether
reliability coordinators should have action plans developed and
implemented with respect to other SOLs apart from IROLs and if so,
which SOLs.
Comments
    53. NERC states that transmission operators already are responsible
for developing action plans for preventing and/or mitigating conditions
that cause facility ratings to be exceeded. NERC therefore contends
that it would add confusion to the process to require both the
reliability coordinator and transmission operator to develop action
plans for every SOL.
    54. Similarly, WECC does not believe that reliability coordinators
should be required to have action plans developed and implemented for
SOLs apart from IROLs. WECC argues that requiring the reliability
coordinator to second guess rather than defer to the more granular view
and detailed view of the transmission operators or balancing
authorities undermines and substantially changes the roles of each
function without any foreseeable benefit to overall reliability.
Commission Determination
    55. The Commission agrees with NERC that requiring both the
reliability coordinator and transmission operator to develop action
plans for every SOL may add confusion to the process. As a result, the
Commission approves IRO-009-1, without modification. However, the
Reliability Coordinator Working Group should further study this issue
and determine if there is a need for reliability coordinators to have
action plans developed and implemented with respect to certain grid-
impactive SOLs.

D. IRO-010-1a

    56. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that Reliability
Standard IRO-010-1a does not require reliability coordinators to
specify a list of minimum data needed for reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System. The Commission, therefore, sought comment on whether
a minimum list of data is necessary for the effective sharing of data
between neighboring reliability coordinators and, if so, what data
should be included. The Commission also sought comment on how
compatibility of data between neighboring reliability coordinators can
be assured without a list of minimum data in this proposed Reliability
Standard.
    57. In its discussion of Reliability Standard TOP-003-1, the
Commission noted that Requirement R3 of proposed Reliability Standard
IRO-010-1a requires entities to provide data and information to the
reliability coordinator in accordance with the reliability
coordinator's specifications. The Commission expressed concern that
this requirement does not specify outage coordination data and,
therefore, the reliability coordinator may not receive adequate outage
coordination data to support the Operational Planning Analysis.
Accordingly, the Commission sought comment on whether IRO-010-1a should
specify necessary outage coordination data.
Comments
    58. NERC, the Joint Commenters and Midwest ISO contend that
requiring a minimum list of data is not necessary for the effective
sharing of data between neighboring reliability coordinators. NERC
argues that requiring a list of minimum data not only could impair an
entity's ability to provide the data to the reliability coordinator
quickly, but could prevent a reliability coordinator from obtaining
needed data quickly. NERC also notes that, during the development of
the proposed Reliability Standard, the reliability coordinators that
were polled indicated they already were receiving the data they needed
without any issues and that the data and information they received
varied from one reliability coordinator to another. The Joint
Commenters argue that it is unnecessary to develop such a requirement
because two interconnected parties can agree upon the appropriate type
and level of data it needs from the other, taking into consideration
their respective tools and capabilities. Midwest ISO argues that many
reliability coordinators already have developed coordination agreements
with their neighbors that identify the information necessary for
effective data sharing. Midwest ISO contends that a generic list of
minimum data could be inadequate to meet regional needs and could
create conflicts with existing coordination agreements. Midwest ISO
further contends that a minimum list could curb creativity and
innovation as capabilities develop new uses for data.
    59. NERC and the Joint Commenters also urge the Commission to
refrain from requiring NERC to modify IRO-010-1a to specify the
necessary outage coordination data for all reliability coordinators.
They contend that such an approach would not account for the
significantly varying facilities located within the reliability
coordinators' area and allow for the flexibility to specify the data
needed for its respective area.
    60. Reiterating comments it raised during the standard development
process, WECC opposes the requirement in R1.2 that the parties reach
mutual agreement with respect to the format of the data and information
that the reliability coordinator receives. WECC argues that, due to the
large number of entities that must provide data to the reliability
coordinator, the requirement for mutually agreeable formats may cause
the reliability coordinator to receive data in a multitude of diverse
formats. WECC also believes that

requiring mutually agreeable data formats could delay the submission of
data by a submitting entity until agreement can be reached via
negotiation or dispute resolution. WECC argues that more than one party
is involved in the formulation of an agreeable format yet only a
reliability coordinator will be found non-compliant when the
reliability coordinator and transmission operators or balancing
authorities within the reliability coordinator area fail to reach an
agreement over an acceptable format.
Commission Determination
    61. The Commission agrees with commenters that it is unnecessary to
direct NERC to develop a specific list of minimum data for the
effective sharing of data between neighboring reliability coordinators
under Reliability Standard IRO-010-1a. NERC and other entities confirm
that reliability coordinators currently obtain necessary data without
such a specific list. In addition, as commenters point out, a minimum
list may conflict with coordination agreements currently in place which
identify the information necessary for effective data sharing. With
regard to the concern expressed in the NOPR regarding outage
coordination data, we accept that reliability coordinators currently
obtain necessary data. If, in the future, reliability coordinators are
not able to obtain the necessary outage coordination data, we would ask
NERC to consider whether a Reliability Standard should be developed for
the reliability coordinators to obtain such data.
    62. In response to WECC's concerns about the submission of data in
mutually agreeable formats under Requirement R1.2, we do not believe
any modification is necessary. As NERC states in its Petition, by
specifying that the format must be mutually agreeable, the standard
supports efficiency by precluding the submission of data that is in a
format that cannot be used. We agree. NERC states that current data
exchange formats are acceptable. Therefore, entities can continue to
utilize existing agreements regarding data exchange. While disputes may
arise in the future, the Reliability Standard does not dictate a
specific dispute resolution process in the interpretation leaving
reliability coordinators and other entities options for informal
resolution of a dispute on the format of data and flexibility in
choosing a dispute resolution process to reach an agreement.
    63. Accordingly, the Commission approves IRO-010-1a as submitted.

E. Violation Severity Levels and Violation Risk Factors

    64. In the event of a violation of a Reliability Standard, NERC
establishes the initial value range for the corresponding base penalty
amount. To do so, NERC assigns a violation risk factor for each
requirement of a Reliability Standard that relates to the expected or
potential impact of a violation of the requirement on the reliability
of the Bulk-Power System. In addition, NERC defines up to four
violation severity levels--Lower, Moderate, High, and Severe--as
measurements for the degree to which the requirement was violated in a
specific circumstance.
    65. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved 63 of NERC's 72
proposed violation risk factors for the version one FAC Reliability
Standards and directed NERC to file violation severity level
assignments before the version one FAC Reliability Standards become
effective.\33\ Subsequently, NERC developed violation severity levels
for each requirement of the Commission-approved FAC Reliability
Standards, as measurements for the degree to which the requirement was
violated in a specific circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability
Standards, Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296, at P 137 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. On June 19, 2008, the Commission issued its Violation Severity
Level Order approving the violation severity level assignments filed by
NERC for the 83 Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 693.\34\ In
that order, the Commission offered four guidelines for evaluating the
validity of violation severity levels, and ordered a number of reports
and further compliance filing to bring the remainder of NERC's
violation severity levels into conformance with the Commission's
guidelines. The four guidelines are: (1) Violation severity level
assignments should not have the unintended consequence of lowering the
current level of compliance; (2) violation severity level assignments
should ensure uniformity and consistency among all approved Reliability
Standards in the determination of penalties; \35\ (3) violation
severity level assignments should be consistent with the corresponding
requirement; and (4) violation severity level assignments should be
based on a single violation, not a cumulative number of violations.\36\
The Commission found that these guidelines will provide a consistent
and objective means for assessing, inter alia, the consistency,
fairness and potential consequences of violation severity level
assignments. The Commission noted that these guidelines were not
intended to replace NERC's own guidance classifications, but rather, to
provide an additional level of analysis to determine the validity of
violation severity level assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Violation Severity Level Order, 123 FERC ] 61,284.
    \35\ Guideline 2 contains two sub-parts: (a) the single
violation severity level assignment category for binary requirements
should be consistent and (b) violation severity levels assignments
should not contain ambiguous language.
    \36\ Violation Severity Level Order, 123 FERC ] 61,284 at P 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. On August 10, 2009, NERC submitted an informational filing
setting forth a summary of revised guidelines that NERC intends to use
in determining the assignment of violation risk factors and violation
severity levels for Reliability Standards. NERC states that these
revised guidelines were consistent with Commission's guidelines. On May
5, 2010, NERC submitted the subject informational filing as a
supplement to its pending March 5, 2010 Violation Severity Level Order
compliance filing.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ North American Reliability Corporation, Filing of the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation regarding the Assignment
of Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels, Docket No.
RR08-4-005 (filed May 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERC Proposal
    68. NERC proposes a complete set of violation severity levels and
violation risk factors for proposed new Reliability Standards IRO-008-
1, IRO-009-1, and IRO-010-1a. In addition, NERC proposes to apply the
existing set of violation severity levels and violation risk factors
assigned to the proposed modified requirements.
    69. NERC states that it developed the violation severity levels for
the new IRO Reliability Standards before the Commission issued its June
19, 2008 Order on violation severity levels.\38\ NERC also notes that
the proposed violation severity levels were developed before NERC
proposed a new methodology for assigning violation severity levels and
violation risk factors.\39\ As a result, NERC states that some of the
proposed violation severity levels do not comport with the Commission's
guidelines on violation severity levels and some do not comport with
the NERC's revised guidelines. NERC identified differences and
committed to propose revisions to the violation severity levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ NERC, Informational Filing Regarding the Assignment of
Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels, Docket Nos.
RM08-11-000, RR07-9-000, and RR07-10-000 (filed Aug. 10, 2009).

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

    70. Separately from NERC's Petition here, on March 5, 2010, NERC
submitted the first of two VSL compliance filings (Filing 1) to the
Commission's VSL Orders,\40\ which contained the VSL assignments for
the original set of 83 Reliability Standards approved by the Commission
and NUC-001-2. In addition, NERC requested an extension for filing the
remaining VSLs until the 3rd quarter of 2010. On July 6, 2010, the
Commission issued a Notice of Extension of Time up to and including
December 1, 2010, for Filing 2.\41\ On December 1, 2010, NERC submitted
a compliance filing to the Commission in Docket No. RR08-04-006 (Filing
2). In Filing 2, NERC submitted VSLs both for Reliability Standards
that are pending at the Commission and Reliability Standards previously
approved by the Commission. Filing 2 includes VSLs to supersede those
in NERC's Petition in Docket No. RM10-15-000 for EOP-001-1, IRO-002-2,
IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, IRO-008-1, IRO-009-1, IRO-010-1, IRO-010-1a, TOP-
003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ]
61,284 (2008), order on reh'g, 125 FERC ] 61,212 (2008) (VSL
Orders).
    \41\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Docket No.
RR08-4-005 (Jul. 6, 2010) (granting an extension of time for
submitting this VSL compliance filing up to and including December
1, 2010).
    \42\ See NERC, Compliance Filing, Docket No. RR08-4-006, at 2
n.6 (filed Dec. 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOPR Proposal
    71. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to accept the proposed
violation risk factors and violation severity levels presented in
NERC's petition. In addition, the Commission proposed to accept NERC's
commitment to review the proposed violation risk factors and violation
severity levels to ensure compliance with the Commission's guidelines.
Accordingly, we proposed to direct NERC to submit a compliance filing
within six months of the effective date of the final rule in this
proceeding that would provide the results of NERC's review including
any modifications necessary to comply with the Commission's guidelines
on violation risk factors and violation severity levels.
Commission Determination
    72. Because a determination has not yet been made regarding NERC's
``roll-up'' approach pending before the Commission in Docket Nos. RR08-
4-005 and RR08-4-006, the Commission will defer discussion on the
proposed violation risk factors and violation severity levels assigned
to IRO-008-1, IRO-009-1, and IRO-010-1a, until after the Commission
issues a final order acting on NERC's petition in these proceedings.

III. Information Collection Statement

    73. The information collection requirements in this Final Rule are
identified under the Commission data collection FERC-725A, ``Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System.'' The information
collection requirements are being submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\43\ OMB's regulations require OMB to approve
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \44\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. The Commission approves new Reliability Standards IRO-008-1,
IRO-009-1, and IRO-010-1a; revised Reliability Standards EOP-001-1,
IRO-002-2, IRO-004-2, IRO-005-3, TOP-003-1, TOP-005-2, and TOP-006-2;
and the two new NERC Glossary terms: ``Operational Planning Analysis''
and ``Real-time Assessment.'' The three new Reliability Standards (IRO-
008-1, IRO-009-1 and IRO-010-1a, governing reliability coordinator
analyses, operational actions and data collection) replace parts of the
currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-001-0, IRO-002-1, IRO-
004-1, IRO-005-2, TOP-003-0, TOP-005-1 and TOP-006-1 approved by the
Commission in Order No. 693.
    75. Thus, this final rule does not impose entirely new burdens on
the affected entities. With the exception of the addition of
Interchange Authority as an applicable entity in IRO-010-1a, the
currently-effective standards EOP-001-0, IRO-002-1, IRO-004-1, IRO-005-
2, TOP-003-0, TOP-005-1 and TOP-006-1 require actions by the same
applicable group of entities. IRO-010-1a clarifies that balancing
authorities, generator owners, generator operators, interchange
authorities, load-serving entities, reliability coordinators,
transmission operators, and transmission owners shall provide data and
information, as specified, to the reliability coordinator(s) with which
it has a reliability relationship.\45\ The requirements of IRO-008-1
and IRO-009-1 provide clarification from existing requirements,
dictating the analysis and operational roles of the reliability
coordinator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Proposed Reliability Standard IRO-010-1a, Requirement R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    76. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of
September 28, 2010. According to the NERC compliance registry, there
are 134 balancing authorities, 824 generator owners, 773 generator
operators, 61 interchange authorities, 541 load-serving entities, 26
reliability coordinators, 178 transmission operators, and 332
transmission owners that would be involved in providing information.
However, under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be
registered for multiple functions, and as such there is some
duplication of functions regarding the number of registered entities
that would be required to provide information. Given these parameters,
the Commission estimates that the Public Reporting burden for the
requirements contained in the final rule is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of
        FERC-725A data collection             Number of          annual           Hours per       Total annual
                                             respondents        responses        respondent           hours
                                                       (A)               (B)               (C)       (A x B x C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability Coordinators distribution of                26                *1                 8               208
 data specification to entities.........
Balancing Authorities, Generator Owners,             1,501                *1                 8            12,008
 Generator Operators, Interchange
 Authorities, Load-serving Entities,
 Reliability Coordinators, Transmission
 Operators, and Transmission Owners
 reporting data to their Reliability
 Coordinator............................
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ................  ................  ................            12,216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*As needed.

     Total Information Collection Costs: The Commission
estimated that it would require 12,216 total annual hours for the
information collection (reporting and recordkeeping) and that the
average annualized costs would be $1,465,920 (12,216 hours @ $120/
hour).
    Title: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-
Power System.
    Action: Proposed Revision to FERC-725A.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0244.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule approves three
Reliability Standards that pertain to interconnection reliability
operating limits and seven modified Reliability Standards that pertain
to emergency preparedness and operations, interconnection reliability
operations and coordination, and transmission operations. This Final
Rule also approves the addition of two new terms to the NERC Glossary
of Terms. The Reliability Standards that pertain to interconnection
reliability operating limits will require reliability coordinators and
transmission operators to coordinate data on system operating limits
and interconnection reliability operating limits. This Final Rule finds
the Reliability Standards and related definitions just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
    77. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE.
Washington, DC 20426, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tel: (202) 502-
8663, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments on the requirements of this final
rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control Number 1902-
0244, RIN 1902-AE17, and the docket number of this final rule in your
submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    78. 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.\46\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. The actions directed here fall within the categorical
exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination.\47\ Accordingly, neither an environmental
impact statement nor environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \47\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    79. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \48\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The requirements of this rule would apply primarily to reliability
coordinators, which do not fall within the definition of small
entities.\49\ Moreover, the proposed Reliability Standards reflect a
continuation of existing requirements for reliability coordinators and
other entities to monitor, analyze, prevent, and mitigate the
occurrence of operating limit violations on the Bulk-Power System. The
one exception is the proposed new requirements in Reliability Standard
IRO-010-1a for interchange authorities, which also do not fall within
the definition of small entities. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \49\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632. According to the SBA, a small electric utility is
defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four
million MWh in the preceding year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    80. 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 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    81. 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.
    82. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    83. These regulations are effective May 23, 2011. 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.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6778 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11465-11467]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04543]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders
(type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.) that would
supersede AD 2000-20-12. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage
attachment fitting. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic;
phone: +420 572 537 428; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4230; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-4230;
Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On September 28, 2000, we issued AD 2000-20-12, Amendment 39-11923
(65 FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (``AD 2000-20-12''). That AD required
actions intended to address an unsafe condition on EVECTOR, spol.
s.r.o. Model L 13 SEH VIVAT gliders and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the Civil
Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for the Czech
Republic. That MCAI (AD CAA-AD-T-112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999),
was issued to correct an unsafe condition for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o.
Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and BLANIK LIMITED
Models L-13 Blanik and L-13 AC Blanik gliders. The MCAI states:

    To prevent destruction of tail-fuselage attachment fitting which
can lead to loss of control of the sailplane. This destruction could
be caused due to lower strength of the material used during
production.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4230.
    A review of records since issuance of AD 2000-20-12 revealed that
the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVECTOR, spol.
s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13
AC Blanik gliders. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2000-20-12 to
add the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders to the
applicability of the AD.
    The FAA will address the BLANIK LIMITED Model L-13 AC Blanik
gliders in another AD action.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-
005a, dated November 18, 1999. The service information describes
procedures for testing the material strength of attachment fitting part
number A 102 021N and instructions for contacting the manufacturer for
replacement information if necessary. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or

develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 9 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $340 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $3,060, or $340 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $500, for a cost of
$1,860 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR
61262; October 17, 2000), and adding the following new AD:

EVECTOR, spol. S.r.o.: Docket No. FAA-2016-4230; Directorate
Identifier 2015-CE-041-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2000-20-12, Amendment 39-11923 (65 FR 61262;
October 17, 2000) (``AD 2000-20-12'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT
and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by
AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.), all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient
material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are
issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct tail-fuselage
fittings with insufficient material strength, which if left
uncorrected could result in detachment of the tail from the fuselage
with consequent loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs:
    (1) Model L 13 SEH VIVAT gliders:
    (i) Within the next 60 days after November 27, 2000 (the
effective date retained from AD 2000-20-12), inspect the tail-
fuselage attachment fitting, part number (P/N) A 102 021N, for
damage and material hardness following the procedures in AEROTECHNIK
CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a, dated November 18,
1999.
    (ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged
or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in
the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph
(f)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the
manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A
102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the
replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (h)
to contact the manufacturer.
    (iii) As of November 27, 2000 (the effective date retained from
AD 2000-20-12), do not install, on any glider, a P/N A 102 021N
attachment fitting that has not passed the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD.
    (2) Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders:
    (i) Within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the tail-fuselage attachment fitting, part number (P/N) A
102 021N, for damage and material hardness following the procedures
in AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13-005a,
dated November 18, 1999.
    (ii) If you find the tail-fuselage attachment fitting is damaged
or the material does not meet the hardness requirements specified in
the service bulletin during the inspection required in paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, you must contact the
manufacturer to obtain an FAA-approved replacement part for P/N A
102 021N and FAA-approved installation instructions and install the
replacement part. Use the contact information found in paragraph (h)
to contact the manufacturer.
    (iii) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install, on
any glider, a P/N A 102 021N attachment fitting that has not passed
the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before

using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority AD CAA-AD-T-112/1999R1,
dated November 23, 1999, for related information. You may examine
the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4230. For service information
related to this AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686
04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/sales-and-support. You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 24, 2016.
Robert P. Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04543 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P