[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16530-16531]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1170; Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-13]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Creighton, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Creighton, NE, to
accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAP) at Creighton Municipal Airport, Creighton, NE. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 30, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 10, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish Class E airspace for
Creighton, NE, creating controlled airspace at Creighton Municipal
Airport (76 FR 1380) Docket No. FAA-2010-1170. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by creating Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures at Creighton Municipal Airport, Creighton, NE. This action
is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it creates controlled airspace at Creighton Municipal Airport,
Creighton, NE.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE NE E5 Creighton, NE [New]

    Creighton Municipal Airport, NE
    (Lat. 42[deg]28'18'' N., long. 97[deg]53'06'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Creighton Municipal Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 130[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7-mile radius to 13.2 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on March 15, 2011.
Richard J. Kervin, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-6854 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15203-15204]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Grant Acquired
Property Release at Asheville Regional Airport, Asheville, North
Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), notice is
being given that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
considering a request from the City of Asheville and Buncombe County to
waive the requirement that approximately 50 acres of airport property,
located at the Asheville Regional Airport, be used for aeronautical
purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Lew Bleiweis, Airport Director, Asheville

Regional Airport, at the following address: Asheville Regional Airport,
61 Terminal Drive, Suite 1, Fletcher, NC 28732.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-
260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the City
of Asheville and Buncombe County to release approximately 50 acres of
airport property at the Asheville Regional Airport. This property was
originally acquired with FAA assistance in 1958. This property is
currently being used by the State of North Carolina for the Western
North Carolina Agricultural Center and is compatible with airport
operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Asheville Regional Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on March 10, 2014.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-05898 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22385-22395]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

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

Communications Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Vincent Le (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Michael Gandolfo (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 808 Final Rule

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

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

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

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

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

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background

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

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

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

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

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

B. NERC Petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \18\ Id. at 25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

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

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

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

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

II. Discussion

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

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

A. Applicability to Generator Owners and Transmission Owners NOPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Internal Communication Capability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Testing Requirements for Distribution Providers and Generator
Operators

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

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

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

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

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

D. Definition of Interpersonal Communication and Alternative
Interpersonal Communication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

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

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

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

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

V. Environmental Analysis

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

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

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

VI. Document Availability

    63. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    64. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    65. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

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

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

    68. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.

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