[Federal Register: October 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 206)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63105-63110]
[DOCID:fr23oc08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM08-11-000]

Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance
Reliability Standards

Issued October 16, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the
Commission is proposing to approve three revised Reliability Standards
developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability
Organization responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory
Reliability Standards. The three revised Reliability Standards,
designated by NERC as FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2, set
requirements for the development and communication of system operating
limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the planning and operation
horizons.

DATES: Comments are due November 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments may be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.
Documents created electronically using word processing software should
be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and not in a
scanned format. This will enhance document retrieval for both the
Commission and the public. The Commission accepts most standard word
processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with
supporting information in certain other file formats. Attachments that
exist only in paper form may be scanned. Commenters filing
electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking
comments is not required. Commenters that are not able to file
electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act,\1\ the
Commission is proposing to approve three revised Reliability Standards
concerning Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance (FAC) that
were developed 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. The three revised Reliability Standards,
designated by NERC as FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2, set
requirements for the development and communication of system operating
limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the planning and operation
horizons.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
    \2\ The Commission is not proposing any new or modified text to
its regulations. Rather, as set forth in 18 CFR Part 40, a proposed
Reliability Standard will not become effective until approved by the
Commission, and the ERO must post on its Web site each effective
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    2. 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 may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC's Proposed Version Two FAC Reliability Standards

    3. On November 15, 2006, NERC filed 20 revised Reliability
Standards and three version one FAC Reliability Standards for
Commission approval. The Commission addressed the 20 revised
Reliability Standards in Order

No. 693 \4\ and established a separate rulemaking proceeding to address
the three version one FAC Reliability Standards, which require planning
authorities and reliability coordinators to establish methodologies to
determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the Bulk-Power System in
the planning and operation horizons. The Commission approved the
version one FAC Reliability Standards in Order No. 705 and directed the
ERO to address certain issues.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, reh'g
denied, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \5\ Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability
Standards, Order No. 705, 73 FR 1770 (Jan. 9, 2008), 121 FERC ]
61,296 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On June 30, 2008, in response to the Commission's directives in
Order No. 705, NERC submitted for Commission approval three revised FAC
Reliability Standards: \6\ FAC-010-2--System Operating Limits
Methodology for the Planning Horizon, FAC-011-2--System Operating
Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon, and FAC-014-2--Establish
and Communicate System Operating Limits. NERC requests that FAC-010-2
be made effective on July 1, 2008, FAC-011-2 on October 1, 2008, and
FAC-014-2 on January 1, 2009, consistent with the implementation dates
of version one of these Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NERC designates the version number of a Reliability Standard
as the last digit of the Reliability Standard number. Therefore,
version one Reliability Standards end with ``-1'' and version two
Reliability Standards end with ``-2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    5. As discussed below, NERC's proposed revisions to the FAC
Reliability Standards preliminarily appear to be just and reasonable
and consistent with our direction in Order No. 705. The Commission
therefore proposes to accept FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2, and FAC-014-2
effective the latter of the effective date of the final rule in this
docket or NERC's proposed effective dates.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Reliability Standards cannot become effective before the
effective date of a Commission order approving them. See, e.g.,
Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection, Order No. 706, 73 FR 7368 at n.190 (Feb. 7, 2008), 122
FERC ] 61,010 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Load Greater Than Studied

    6. Requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-1 provided that the system's
response to a single contingency may include, inter alia,
``[i]nterruption of other network customers, only if the system has
already been adjusted, or is being adjusted, following at least one
prior outage, or, if the real-time operating conditions are more
adverse than anticipated in the corresponding studies, e.g., load
greater than studied.'' NERC asserted that a significant gap between
actual and studied conditions (such as a large error in load forecast)
could be treated as though it were a contingency under the version 1 of
FAC-011-1 Reliability Standard.
    7. In Order No. 705, the Commission disagreed with NERC's reading
of FAC-011-1, sub-Requirement R2.3.2 and interpretation of the phrase
``load greater than studied.'' \8\ However, the Commission found that
the meaning of Requirement R2.3 and sub-Requirement R2.3.2 was not
otherwise unclear. The Commission therefore approved FAC-011-1, but
directed the ERO to revise the Reliability Standard through the
Reliability Standards development process. The Commission suggested
that NERC could address the Commission's concern by deleting the
phrase, ``e.g., load greater than studied.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERC Proposal
    8. NERC proposes to address the Commission's concern with the
phrase ``load greater than studied'' by revising FAC-011-1 to remove
the phrase from Requirement R2.3.2. NERC states that because the phrase
served as an example, its removal does not materially change the
requirement or the Reliability Standard. NERC's proposed FAC-011-2
therefore omits the relevant phrase.
Commission Proposal
    9. The Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed removal of
the phrase ``e.g., load greater than studied'' from Requirement R2.3.2
of FAC-011-2. NERC's revision in FAC-011-2 appears reasonable and does
not appear to change or conflict with the stated requirements set forth
in the version one Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 705.
NERC's revision therefore appears just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
    10. While NERC describes the phrase ``load greater than studied''
as an example and states that its removal does not materially change
the requirement, the Commission notes that Order No. 705 found that the
operating conditions referred to in sub-Requirement R2.3.2 are
exacerbating circumstances that are distinct from the actual
contingency to be addressed that is referred to in Requirement R2.3. We
stated that this did not support treating ``load greater than studied''
as a contingency.\9\ As we stated in Order No. 705, correcting for load
forecast error is not accomplished by treating the error as a
contingency, but is addressed under other Reliability Standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. P 69.
    \10\ Id. P 68. For instance, we stated that ``transmission
operators are required to modify their plans whenever they receive
information or forecasts that are different from what they used in
their present plans. Furthermore, variations in weather forecasts
that result in load forecast errors are more properly addressed
through operating reserve requirements.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cascading Outages

    11. With the version one FAC Reliability Standards, NERC proposed
to add the term ``Cascading Outages'' to its glossary. In Order No.
705, the Commission noted that, although the glossary did not include a
definition of Cascading Outages, it included an approved definition of
Cascading, which seemed to describe the same concept. The Commission
remanded NERC's proposed definition of Cascading Outages because NERC
did not describe either the need for two definitions that seem to
address the same matter or the variations between the two. The
Commission also raised specific concerns with NERC's proposed
definition of Cascading Outages. However, the Commission allowed NERC
to file a revised definition that addresses the Commission's concerns.
NERC Proposal
    12. NERC states that it is not proposing a revised definition of
Cascading Outage. Instead, NERC proposes to address the Commission's
concern by removing the term from the proposed FAC Reliability
Standards. NERC states that its Board of Trustees withdrew its approval
of the term at its February 12, 2008 meeting. NERC further states that
the drafting team reviewed the term Cascading Outage relative to the
term Cascading, a term in the approved NERC Glossary of Terms and
indicated there were no intended material differences in the terms.
NERC therefore removed the term Cascading Outage from the proposed FAC-
010-2 and FAC-011-2 Reliability Standards and replaced with it with the
term Cascading.
Commission Proposal
    13. The Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed removal of
the term Cascading Outage from its FAC Reliability Standards. NERC's
proposed revisions to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 appear reasonable and do
not appear to change or conflict with the stated requirements set forth
in the version one

Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 705. NERC's revisions
therefore appear just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.

C. Loss of Consequential Load

    14. Requirement R2.3 of FAC-010-1 provided that the system's
response to a single contingency may include, inter alia, ``planned or
controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some
local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted
Facility or by the affected area.'' \11\ In response to a question
raised by the Commission, NERC clarified that the provision in FAC-010-
1, Requirement R2.3 is limited to loss of load that is directly
connected to the facilities removed from service as a direct result of
the contingency, i.e., consequential load loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Identical language appears in FAC-011-1, Requirement R2.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. In Order No. 705, the Commission reiterated its holding that
addressed similar language on loss of load in Order No. 693, regarding
Reliability Standard TPL-002-0. In Order No. 693, the Commission noted
that ``allowing for the 30 minute system adjustment period, the system
must be capable of withstanding an N-1 contingency, with load shedding
available to system operators as a measure of last resort to prevent
cascading failures.'' \12\ Order No. 693 directed the ERO to clarify
the planning Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 accordingly. The Commission
reached the same conclusion in Order No. 705. In Order No. 705, the
Commission approved Reliability Standard FAC-010-1, Requirement R2.3
and directed the ERO to ensure that the clarification developed in
response to Order No. 693 is made to the FAC Reliability Standards as
well.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1788.
    \13\ Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERC's Proposal
    16. NERC suggests that the revisions to the term ``loss of
consequential load'' are best addressed in the modifications being made
to the transmission planning (TPL) family of Reliability Standards in
its Project 2006-02 Assess Transmission Future Needs and Develop
Transmission Plans. NERC reiterates its position that the TPL
Reliability Standards define acceptable system performance response and
serve as the foundation for the FAC family of Reliability Standards.
NERC states that the term ``loss of consequential load'' is intrinsic
to the scope of Project 2006-02. According to NERC, the drafting team
has already proposed a definition for the term to be presented for
approval for inclusion in NERC's Glossary of Terms.\14\ NERC states
that this approach will provide the clarity needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On August 14, 2007, the Reliability Standards drafting team
posted for comment a draft of Reliability Standard TPL-001-1. NERC,
Draft 2 TPL-001-1, Transmission System Planning Performance
Requirements Posted for 45-day Comment Period, Project 2006-02, at 2
(2008), available at: http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/Assess-
Transmission-Future-Needs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Proposal
    17. The Commission proposes to allow the ERO to address revisions
to the term ``loss of consequential load'' in the modification being
made to the TPL Reliability Standards. Such revisions should be
consistent with the Commission's prior determinations in Order Nos. 693
and 705.\15\ The Commission finds that FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 are
clearly understood as written and clarified in Order No. 705, including
its holding with respect to ``loss of consequential load,'' \16\ and
that NERC's proposal to deal with ``loss of consequential load'' in a
more-related project is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 53; Order No.
693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1788 & n.461.
    \16\ See id. P 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Violation Severity Levels

    18. In the event of a violation of a Reliability Standard, NERC
will establish the initial value range for the corresponding base
penalty amount. To do so, NERC will assign 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 will define 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.
    19. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved 63 of NERC's 72
proposed violation risk factors and directed NERC to file violation
severity level assignments before the version one FAC Reliability
Standards become effective.\17\ Subsequently, NERC developed violation
severity levels for each requirement of Reliability Standard, as
measurements for the degree to which the requirement was violated in a
specific circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. On June 19, 2008, the Commission issued an order approving the
violation severity level assignments filed by NERC for the 83
Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 693.\18\ In that order, the
Commission offered four guidelines for evaluating the validity of the
violation severity levels, and ordered a number of reports and further
compliance filing to bring the remainder of NERC's violation severity
levels into compliance 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; (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.\19\ 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, provide an additional
level of analysis to determine the validity of violation severity level
assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ]
61,284 (2008) (Violation Severity Level Order). NERC had not, at
that time, submitted violation severity levels for the FAC
Reliability Standards at issue in this proceeding.
    \19\ Id. P 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NERC Proposal
    21. NERC states that it developed a full suite of violation
severity levels for FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2. NERC notes that
it developed these violation severity levels prior to the issuance of
the Violation Severity Level Order.\20\ NERC requests that the
Commission accept its violation severity levels for the version two FAC
Reliability Standards even though it has not yet assessed their
validity using the four new guidelines established in the Violation
Severity Level Order. NERC states that it is committed to assessing the
violation severity levels for the revised FAC Reliability Standards in
the six-month compliance filing required by the Violation Severity
Level Order.\21\

NERC did not submit violation risk factors for these version two FAC
Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NERC June 30, 2008 Filing, Docket No. RM07-3-000 at 5.
    \21\ Id. (citing Violation Severity Level Order, 123 FERC ]
61,284 at P 42 (requiring NERC, within six months from the issuance
of the Violation Severity Level Order, to conduct a review of the
approved violation severity levels pursuant to the Commission
guidelines, and submit a compliance filing)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Proposal
    22. The Commission proposes to approve, with modification, NERC's
proposed violation severity levels for FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-
014-2. While we appreciate that NERC assigned its proposed violation
severity levels before the Commission established the four guidelines
for evaluating the validity of the violation severity levels, we find
that NERC's proposed violation severity levels would not meet our
guidelines. We therefore propose the following modifications to the
violation severity levels to form a complete set of violation severity
levels in this NOPR. We note that NERC has committed to assessing the
violation severity levels in the compliance filing required by the
Violation Severity Level Order. Our proposals here do not preclude NERC
from including an assessment of its FAC violation severity levels in
its six-month evaluation, and we encourage NERC to do so. If, however,
NERC does not include an assessment of its FAC violation severity
levels in its six-month evaluation, the Commission proposes to direct
the ERO to submit an assessment of the FAC violation severity levels
within six months of the effective date of the Final Rule in this
docket.
    23. As drafted, some of NERC's proposed violation severity levels
do not meet the Commission's guidelines established in the Violation
Severity Level Order. Of the violation severity levels submitted by
NERC, FAC-010-2 Requirements R1, R3, R4 and R5; FAC-011-2 Requirement
R4; and FAC-014-2 Requirement R5 are consistent with the Commission
violation severity level guidelines and only minor edits are proposed
for clarity. The Commission therefore proposes to approve modified
violation severity levels that are consistent with our guidelines.
    24. The Commission is concerned with several of the proposed
violation severity levels and proposes modifications. For example, as
proposed by NERC, it is difficult to discern which conditions trigger
which violation severity level assigned to FAC-010-2 Requirement R4.
The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO to make
modifications to clarify those conditions without changing the
substance of the violation severity levels. The Commission also
proposes to direct the ERO to modify the violation severity levels
assigned to FAC-011-2 Requirement R1 to make them consistent with the
violation severity levels proposed for FAC-010-2 Requirement R1. This
uniformity will assist in the compliance and enforcement of these
standards because it is logical that nearly identical requirements have
nearly identical violation severity level structures.
    25. NERC submitted violation severity levels for Requirement R2 of
FAC-010-2 and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2. In Order No. 705, the
Commission found that Requirement R2 of FAC-010-1 and Requirement R2 of
FAC-011-1, without their sub-requirements, include no required
performance or outcome.\22\ As such, no violation severity levels need
to be assigned to these requirements. The Commission therefore proposes
to delete the proposed violation severity levels for Requirement R2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. As proposed by NERC, Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 is assigned a
``Severe'' violation severity level if the reliability coordinator's
methodology for determining SOLs is missing a description of three or
more of the sub-requirements ranging from R3.1 to R3.7. At the same
time, NERC assigns a ``High'' violation severity level if the
reliability coordinator's methodology for determining SOLs includes a
description for all but three sub-requirements within the same range.
Therefore, if a reliability coordinator's methodology for determining
SOLs is missing a description of three sub-requirements, it could be
assigned both a ``High'' and a ``Severe'' violation severity level. To
eliminate this overlap, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to
assign a ``Severe'' violation severity level to Requirement R3 of FAC-
011-2 where the reliability coordinator is missing a description of
four or more sub-requirements R3.1 to R3.7 from its methodology for
determining SOLs.
    27. Requirements R1 through R4 of FAC-014-2 address the development
of SOLs and IROLs consistent with the methodologies outlined in FAC-
010-2 and FAC-011-2. NERC proposes to assign violation severity levels
to these requirements based on a quartile division of the total number
of inconsistencies between the assigned SOLs and the SOLs that would be
produced using the methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2.
For example, NERC proposes to assign a ``Lower'' violation severity
level where 1 to 25 percent of SOLs are inconsistent with the
applicable entity's SOL methodology. The Commission believes that each
time a SOL is inconsistent with the applicable entity's SOL
methodology, it is a violation of the Reliability Standards. By
contrast, NERC's proposed violation severity levels are based on
multiple inconsistent SOLs. The Commission's fourth guideline for
evaluating violation severity levels makes clear that violation
severity level assignments should be based on a single violation, not
on a cumulative number of violations. To remedy this deficiency, the
Commission proposes to direct the ERO to modify its violation severity
levels for FAC-014-02 Requirements R1 through R4 based on the
percentage of deviation from the SOL methodology for each violation.
    28. Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 requires the planning authority to
identify the subset of multiple contingencies (if any), from
Reliability Standard TPL-003 that result in stability limits. However,
the proposed violation severity levels for Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2
do not identify a situation where the planning authority fails to
provide a complete subset of contingencies to the reliability
coordinator. This omission could result in the reliability coordinator
not having the information it needs for its situational awareness of
exceeding SOLs and IROLs that impact the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System. The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO
to add the following ``Lower'' violation severity level: ``The Planning
Authority failed to provide a complete subset of contingencies to the
reliability coordinator in accordance with R6.'' The Commission also
proposes to direct the ERO to reassign NERC's current ``Lower''
violation severity level as the new ``Moderate'' violation severity
level to emphasize the need to notify the reliability coordinator.\23\
The revisions proposed here would make the violation severity level
assignments for Requirement R6 consistent with NERC's own guidelines
for the development of violation severity levels related to
communication or coordination requirements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NERC did not propose a ``Moderate'' violation severity
level for requirement R6.
    \24\ NERC, Violation Severity Level Guidelines Criteria, Project
2007-23 at 19 (2008), available at: http://www.nerc.com/docs/
standards/sar/VSLDT_Guidelines_Final_Draft_08Jan08.pdf. The NERC
Guidelines indicate that a Moderate violation severity level should
be selected when the responsible entity's coordination/communication
is non-compliant with respect to at least one significant element
within the requirement. In this case, the significant element is the
failure to notify the Reliability Coordinator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The Commission has directed NERC to develop violation severity
levels for each requirement and sub-requirement of each Reliability

Standard.\25\ NERC did not propose any violation severity level
assignments for sub-requirements. The Commission therefore proposes to
direct the ERO to assign binary violation severity levels for all of
the proposed sub-requirements.\26\ In Order No. 705, the Commission
found that the binary approach is appropriate for certain violation
severity level assignments.\27\ In this instance, the binary approach
is appropriate because the violation severity level of the base
requirement is established by whether a sub-requirement is violated or
not, not to what extent a sub-requirement is violated. Thus, the
proposed binary requirements satisfy guideline three, which calls for
consistency between the violation severity level assignments and their
corresponding requirements. For example, FAC-010-2 Requirement R1.1
states that the planning authority's SOL methodology shall ``[b]e
applicable for developing SOLs used in the planning horizon.'' \28\
NERC did not propose any violation severity levels for this sub-
requirement, therefore the Commission proposes a binary severe
violation severity level that would be triggered when the planning
authority SOL methodology is not applicable for developing SOLs in the
planning horizon. This binary approach for sub-requirements provides
clear criteria to determine a violation of the sub-requirement. The
Commission took a similar approach to the sub-requirements applicable
to the WECC regional differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,248, order on clarification, 120 FERC ] 61,239 (2007).
    \26\ Binary requirements of Reliability Standards define
compliance in terms of ``pass'' or ``fail.''
    \27\ Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 24.
    \28\ NERC June 30, 2008 Filing, Docket No. RM07-3-000 ex. A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. The complete set of the Commission's proposals is included in
Attachment A to this order. The Commission proposes to direct the ERO
to file the revised violation severity levels within 30 days of the
Final Rule in this proceeding.
    31. Finally, the Commission notes that NERC did not submit
violation risk factors for the version two FAC Reliability Standards.
In Order No. 705, the Commission approved the majority of NERC's
proposed violation risk factors for the version one FAC Reliability
Standards.\29\ On April 1, 2008, NERC filed revised violation risk
factors for the version one FAC Reliability Standards. These were
accepted by delegated authority on May 29, 2008. The Commission
proposes to direct the ERO to apply those same violation risk factors
to the version two FAC Reliability Standards approved in the Final Rule
in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 at P 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Western Interconnection Regional Differences

    32. Although NERC submitted requirements for FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-
2 that address the Western Interconnection regional difference, NERC
did not submit violation severity levels or violation risk factors for
these requirements. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved version
one of the FAC Reliability Standards and directed WECC to develop and
submit violation risk factors and violation severity levels that are
applicable to the Western Interconnection regional difference.\30\ The
Commission directed WECC to file its violation risk factors and
violation severity levels no later than the effective date of the
applicable Reliability Standard. FAC-010-1 became effective on July 1,
2008 and FAC-011-1 will become effective on October 1, 2008. To remedy
this deficiency, the Commission offers proposed modifications to the
violation severity level assignments assigned to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-
2 that address the Western Interconnection regional differences. The
Commission's proposed modifications are included in Attachment A to
this order. Consistent with our decision in Order No. 705, the
Commission proposes to direct WECC to apply the NERC violation risk
factors to the Western Interconnection regional difference until after
WECC develops its own and they are approved by the ERO and the
Commission.\31\ We note that WECC is still obligated to comply with the
Commission's directives in Order No. 705 to file violation risk factors
and violation severity levels addressing the Western Interconnection
regional difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. P 146.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    33. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\32\ The information contained here
is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\33\ As stated above, the Commission previously
approved, in Order No. 705, each of the Reliability Standards that are
the subject of the current rulemaking. The modifications to the
Reliability Standards are minor; therefore, they do not add to or
increase entities' reporting burden. Thus, the modified Reliability
Standards do not materially affect the burden estimates relating to the
earlier version of the Reliability Standards presented in Order No.
705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \33\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance
Reliability Standards.
    Action: Proposed Collection.
    OMB Control No.:
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This NOPR proposes to approve three
modified Reliability Standards that pertain to facilities design,
connections and maintenance. The Reliability Standards will require
planning authorities and reliability coordinators to establish
methodologies to determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the Bulk-
Power System in the planning and operation horizons. This NOPR proposes
to find the Reliability Standards and interpretations just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
    34. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn:
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE.
Washington, DC 20426, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by contacting: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Re: OMB Control No. 1902-0244), Washington, DC
20503, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IV. Environmental Analysis

    35. 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.\34\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not

substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.\35\
The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in
the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \35\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \36\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards
develops the numerical definition of a small business. (See 13 CFR
121.201). For electric utilities, a firm is small if, including
affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation
and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric
output for the preceding twelve months did not exceed four million
megawatt hours. The RFA is not implicated by this Final Rule because
the minor modifications and interpretations discussed herein will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Processing

    37. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due November 24, 2008. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM08-11-000, and must include the commenters' name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
    38. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http:/
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically
should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking comments is not
required.
    39. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    40. All Comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    41. 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.
    42. 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.
    43. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or (202)
502-6652 (e-mail at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov), or the Public
Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER> (e-mail at
public.reference@ferc.gov).

    By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25051 Filed 10-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 122)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35579]
[DOCID:fr24jn08-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Sulfachlorpyridazine Powder

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Fort Dodge Animal Health, A Division of
Wyeth Holdings Corp. The supplemental NADA provides for a revised food
safety warning statement for oral use of sulfachlorpyridazine in the
milk or milk replacer of ruminating calves.

DATES: This rule is effective June 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Cindy L. Burnsteel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fort Dodge Animal Health, A Division of
Wyeth Holdings Corp., P.O. Box 1339, Fort Dodge, IA 50501, filed a
supplement to NADA 33-373 for VETISULID (sulfachlorpyridazine sodium)
Powder, approved for oral use in calves and swine for the treatment of
diarrhea caused or complicated by Escherichia coli (colibacillosis).
The supplemental NADA provides for a revised food safety warning
statement for oral use of sulfachlorpyridazine in the milk or milk
replacer of ruminating calves. The supplemental application is approved
as of May 19, 2008, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 520.2200b
to reflect the approval and a current format.
    Approval of this supplemental NADA did not require review of
additional safety or effectiveness data or information. Therefore, a
freedom of information summary is not required.
    The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
2. Revise Sec.  520.2200b to read as follows:

Sec.  520.2200b  Sulfachlorpyridazine powder.

    (a) Specifications. Sodium sulfachlorpyridazine powder.
    (b) Sponsor. See No. 053501 in Sec.  510.600(c) of this chapter.
    (c) Related tolerances. See Sec.  556.630 of this chapter.
    (d) Conditions of use. It is used as follows:
    (1) Calves--(i) Amount. Administer 30 to 45 milligrams per pound
(mg/lb) body weight per day in milk or milk replacer for 1 to 5 days in
2 divided doses twice daily.
    (ii) Indications for use. For the treatment of diarrhea caused or
complicated by E. coli (colibacillosis).
    (iii) Limitations. Treated, ruminating calves must not be
slaughtered for food during treatment or for 7 days after the last
treatment. A withdrawal period has not been established for this
product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed
for veal.
    (2) Swine--(i) Amount. Administer 20 to 35 mg/lb body weight per
day for 1 to 5 days in 2 divided doses twice daily:
    (A) In drinking water; or
    (B) For individual treatment, in an oral suspension containing
approximately 42 mg sulfachlorpyridazine per milliliter in divided
doses twice daily.
    (ii) Indications for use. For the treatment of diarrhea caused or
complicated by E. coli (colibacillosis).
    (iii) Limitations. Treated swine must not be slaughtered for food
during treatment or for 4 days after the last treatment.

    Dated: June 9, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-14291 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S