[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 54002]
[DOCID:fr02se10-104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Open Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a
meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC). The meeting will take place on Thursday, October 7, 2010,
starting at 8 a.m. at the National Housing Center, 1201 15th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    The proposed agenda for this meeting will feature discussions on:

--Orbital debris and related issues;
--The issues the working groups propose to address; and
--The role of commercial space as part of the United States' Space
Policy.

    There will be discussions and activity reports by the chairpersons
of the COMSTAC working groups.
    Mr. Philip McAlister of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Commercial Crew Transportation office has been
invited to speak.
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written
statements for the COMSTAC members to consider under the advisory
process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items mentioned
above or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S. commercial
space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to submit
written statements should contact Susan Lender, DFO, (the Contact
Person listed below) in writing (mail or e-mail) by September 15, 2010,
so that the information can be made available to COMSTAC members for
their review and consideration prior to the October 7, 2010, meeting.
Written statements should be supplied in the following formats: One
hard copy with original signature or one electronic copy via e-mail.
    Subject to approval, a portion of the October 7th meeting will be
closed to the public (starting at 3:45 pm).
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/
go/ast. For specific information concerning the times and locations of
the COMSTAC working group meetings, contact the Contact Person listed
below.
    The FAA is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for
all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because
of a disability, please inform the contact person by telephone or e-
mail with your request by close of business September 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Susan Lender (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Complete information regarding COMSTAC is
available on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, August 27, 2010.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010-21910 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44475-44483]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17730]

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

DEPARMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM13-7-000]

Protection System Maintenance Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the
Commission proposes to approve a revised Reliability Standard, PRC-005-
2--Protection System Maintenance, to supersede four existing
Reliability Standards, PRC-005-1.1b (Transmission and Generation
Protection System Maintenance and Testing), PRC-008-0 (Underfrequency
Load Shedding Equipment Maintenance), PRC-011-0 (Undervoltage Load
Shedding Equipment Maintenance) and PRC-017-0 (Special Protection
System Maintenance and Testing). In addition, the Commission seeks
clarification and comment on three aspects of the proposed Reliability
Standard and proposes to modify one violation severity level.

DATES: Comments are due September 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
    Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process,

see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Bradish (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:

144 FERC ] 61,055

(July 18, 2013)

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission proposes to approve a revised Reliability Standard, PRC-005-
2--Protection System Maintenance, to supersede four existing
Reliability Standards, PRC-005-1.1b (Transmission and Generation
Protection System Maintenance and Testing), PRC-008-0 (Underfrequency
Load Shedding Equipment Maintenance), PRC-011-0 (Undervoltage Load
Shedding Equipment Maintenance) and PRC-017-0 (Special Protection
System Maintenance and Testing). The proposed modifications, in part,
respond to certain Commission directives issued in Order No. 693,\2\ in
which the Commission approved initial versions of these four
Reliability Standards governing maintenance and testing of protection
systems, and maintenance of underfrequency and undervoltage load
shedding equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
    \2\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16,416 (April 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 represents an
improvement over the four existing standards covering protection system
maintenance and testing, by incorporating specific, required minimum
maintenance activities and maximum time intervals for maintenance of
individual components of protection systems and load shedding equipment
affecting the bulk electric system. While the proposed Reliability
Standard also gives responsible entities the option of developing their
own, performance-based maintenance intervals for most components, the
intervals must be designed to achieve a minimum performance level, and
must be adjusted if that target performance level is not actually
achieved. In addition, the proposed Reliability Standard combines the
maintenance and testing requirements for protection systems into one
comprehensive Reliability Standard, as was suggested by the Commission
in Order No. 693.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. While the proposed Reliability Standard contains overall
improvements, as discussed below, we seek additional information and
comments on the following: (A) Verification of operability and settings
upon placement in-service of new or modified protection systems; (B)
use of a four percent target for countable events in performance-based
programs; and (C) violation severity levels for certain Requirement R1
violations.
    4. We also propose to approve the six new definitions associated
with proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, i.e., Component,
Component Type, Countable Event, Protection System Maintenance Program,
Segment, and Unresolved Maintenance Issue. Of these newly defined
terms, NERC proposes to include only the term Protection System
Maintenance Program in its Glossary of Terms, with the remainder
applying only to Reliability Standard PRC-005-2.
    5. Finally, we propose to approve NERC's proposed implementation
plan for the proposed Reliability Standard, which requires entities to
develop a compliant protection system maintenance program within twelve
months, but allows for the transition over time of maintenance
activities and documentation to conform to the new minimum maintenance
activities and maximum maintenance intervals.

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background

    6. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 824o(c) and (d).
    \5\ See id. at 824o(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to
FPA section 215.\6\ In 2007, in Order No. 693, the Commission approved
an initial set of Reliability Standards submitted by NERC, including
initial versions of four protection system and load-shedding-related
maintenance standards, i.e., PRC-005-1, PRC-008-0, PRC-011-0, and PRC-
017-0.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    \7\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 1474,
1492, 1497, and 1514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In approving these protection system-related Reliability
Standards, the Commission directed NERC to develop or to consider a
number of modifications. Specifically, the Commission directed NERC to:
(1) Develop a revision to PRC-005-1 incorporating a maximum time
interval during which to conduct maintenance and testing of protection
systems; and (2) consider combining into one standard the various
maintenance and testing requirements for all of the maintenance and
testing-related Reliability Standards for protection systems,
underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) equipment and undervoltage load
shedding (UVLS) equipment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In Order No. 763, the Commission approved Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1 pertaining to ``underfrequency load shedding''
which also encompasses ``undervoltage load shedding.'' Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding Plans Reliability
Standards, Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In a subsequent order, issued in response to NERC's request for
approval of its interpretation of PRC-005-1 (Order No. 758), the
Commission issued three additional directives, addressing deficiencies
in the existing version of Reliability Standard PRC-005.\9\ The
Commission directed NERC to modify Reliability Standard PRC-005-1,
through its standards development process, to: (1) Identify and include
the auxiliary relays and non-electrical sensing devices designed to
sense or take action against any abnormal system condition that will
affect reliable operation (such as sudden pressure relays); (2) include
specific requirements for maintenance and testing of reclosing relays
that affect the reliable operation of the bulk-power system; and (3)
include specific requirements for maintenance and testing of DC control
circuitry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Interpretation of Protection System Reliability Standard,
138 FERC ] 61,094 (2012) (Order No. 758).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Existing Protection System-Related Maintenance Standards

    10. Under currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-005-1b,
transmission owners, generator owners, and applicable distribution
providers are required to have a protection system maintenance and
testing program for any protection system elements that affect the bulk
electric system, and must

document their compliance with that program. The program must include
maintenance and testing intervals and their basis, and a summary of
maintenance and testing procedures. However, Reliability Standard PRC-
005-1b does not impose any specific requirements regarding maintenance
activities, standards or intervals. Similarly, Reliability Standards
PRC-008-0, PRC-011-0, and PRC-017-0 require applicable transmission
owners, distribution providers and generator owners to have a
maintenance and testing program in place for UFLS equipment, UVLS
equipment, and special protection systems, respectively, and to
document their compliance with their program. These Reliability
Standards, like PRC-005-1b, do not impose any specific requirements
regarding maintenance activities, standards or intervals.

C. NERC Petition and Proposed Standard PRC-005-2

    11. On February 26, 2013, NERC submitted a petition seeking
approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, six new
definitions associated with that standard, and a proposed
implementation plan that includes retirement of the four currently-
effective Reliability Standards that address maintenance and testing of
transmission and generation protection systems, UFLS and UVLS
equipment, and special protection systems. NERC maintains that the
proposed Reliability Standard not only consolidates the four currently-
effective standards into a single standard, but also addresses the
directives in Order No. 693 related to those standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NERC Petition at 2. See also NERC Petition at 12 where NERC
states that while additional directives related to the PRC-005
Reliability Standard were issued by the Commission in a subsequent
order, Order No. 758, these directives are being addressed in future
projects related to PRC-005. NERC indicates in its petition that it
will address these remaining directives in future versions of PRC-
005, and that it is currently addressing the maintenance and testing
of reclosing relays in a new Project [2007-17]. See NERC Petition at
7-8 (citing NERC's Informational Filing in Compliance with Order No.
758, Docket No. RM10-5, and NERC Project 2007-17 Protection System
Maintenance--Phase 2 (Reclosing Relays)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standard establishes
minimum acceptable maintenance activities and accompanying maximum
allowable maintenance intervals for specific component types, gives
responsible entities flexibility to implement ``condition-based
maintenance'' that allows for adjustment of intervals and activities to
reflect monitoring of components, and establishes requirements for the
implementation of performance-based maintenance programs.\11\ NERC
maintains that the proposed standard will improve reliability by:

    \11\ Id. at 3.

    (i) defining and establishing criteria for a Protection System
Maintenance Program; (ii) reducing the risk of Protection System
Misoperations; (iii) clearly stating the applicability of the
Requirements in proposed PRC-005-2 to certain Functional Entities
and Facilities; (iv) establishing Requirements for time-based
maintenance programs that include maximum allowable maintenance
intervals for all relevant devices; and (v) establishing
Requirements for condition-based and performance-based maintenance
programs where hands-on maintenance intervals are adjusted to
reflect the known and reported condition or the historical
performance, respectively, of the relevant devices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.

    13. NERC asserts that the proposed Reliability Standard not only
represents a comprehensive approach to documenting and implementing
programs for maintenance of all protection systems affecting the
reliability of the bulk electric system, but also reduces the risk of
misoperations ``by applying consistent, best practice maintenance and
inspection activities of Protection System Components.'' \13\ NERC
maintains that the proposed Reliability Standard represents an
improvement over the four standards that would be superseded, because
none of the existing standards contain technical requirements for any
of the maintenance programs, but merely specify that a program be in
place and that each responsible entity comply with the requirements of
its own program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 11.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. NERC also maintains that the proposed Reliability Standard
satisfies three outstanding directives from Order No. 693 related to
the PRC maintenance standards. First, NERC explains that the proposed
Reliability Standard includes maximum allowable intervals for
maintenance of protection system components (as set out in Tables 1-1
through 1-5, Table 2 and Table 3 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-
2).\15\ Second, Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 combines the
requirements for PRC-005, PRC-008, PRC-011 and PRC-017 into one new,
revised standard, addressing maintenance for transmission and
generation protection systems, for special protection systems, and for
UFLS and UVLS equipment.\16\ Finally, in Order No. 693, the Commission
directed NERC to consider whether load serving entities and
transmission operators should be included in the applicability of PRC-
004.\17\ NERC maintains that it considered whether load-serving
entities and transmission operators should be subject to any of the PRC
maintenance and testing requirements, but determined that the
applicable maintenance requirements need only apply to equipment owners
such as generation owners, transmission owners, and certain
distribution providers.\18\ NERC explains that ``[w]hile an equipment
owner may need to coordinate with the operating entities in order to
schedule the actual maintenance, the responsibility resides with the
equipment owners to complete the required maintenance.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 12.
    \16\ Id. at 12-13.
    \17\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1469.
    \18\ NERC Petition at 13.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The proposed Reliability Standard includes five requirements.
Under Requirement R1, each responsible entity must establish a
protection system maintenance program that: (1) Identifies which method
(time-based or performance-based) will be used for each protection
system component type, except that the maintenance program for all
batteries associated with the station DC supply of a protection system
must be time-based; and (2) identifies monitored component attributes
for each component type where monitoring is used as a basis for
extending maintenance intervals.
    16. Under Requirement R2, any responsible entity that uses
performance-based maintenance intervals must follow the procedures set
out in Attachment A of the proposed Reliability Standard to set and to
adjust, as necessary, appropriate maintenance intervals. The Attachment
A procedures allow a responsible entity to establish maintenance
intervals for a given population of similar components based on
historical performance, as long as there is a statistically significant
population of components for which performance can be examined and
monitored. For example, under the Attachment A procedures, a
responsible entity can only use a performance-based interval for
``segments'' with a component population of at least 60 components.\20\
The maximum allowable

maintenance interval for a given segment is required to be set such
that the segment will experience countable events of no more than four
percent of the components within that segment, for the greater of
either the last 30 components maintained or all components maintained
in the previous year.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NERC defines ``segment'' as ``Protection Systems or
components of a consistent design standard, or a particular model or
type from a single manufacturer that typically share other common
elements. Consistent performance is expected across the entire
population of a Segment.'' NERC Petition, Ex. B (PRC-005-2) at 26.
    \21\ NERC defines ``countable event'' as ``a failure of a
component requiring repair or replacement, any condition discovered
during the maintenance activities in Tables 1-1 through 1-5 and
Table 3 which requires corrective action, or a Misoperation
attributed to hardware failure or calibration failure.'' NERC
Petition, Ex. B (PRC-005-2) at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. In addition, to continue to utilize a performance-based
interval, the responsible entity must update its list of components and
segments annually (or whenever a change occurs within a segment), must
maintain a minimum number or percentage of components a year, and must
analyze a given segment's maintenance record to determine the
percentage of countable events. If the percentage of countable events
for the last 30 components maintained or the number of components
maintained over the last year (whichever is larger) exceeds four
percent, the responsible entity must implement an action plan to reduce
the expected countable events to less than four percent for that
segment within the next three years.
    18. Requirements R3 and R4 require a responsible entity to adhere
to the requirements of its protection system maintenance program,
including performance of minimum maintenance activities. Under
Requirement R3, which governs time-based maintenance, the activities
must be performed in accordance with the intervals prescribed in the
tables attached to PRC-005-2. Under Requirement R4, the activities must
be carried out in accordance with the performance-based intervals
established under Requirement R2 and Attachment A.
    19. Under Requirement R5, responsible entities must ``demonstrate
efforts to correct identified Unresolved Maintenance Issues,'' which
are defined as ``deficienc[ies] identified during a maintenance
activity that causes the component to not meet the intended
performance, cannot be corrected during the maintenance interval, and
requires follow-up corrective action.'' NERC explains that the intent
of Requirement R5 is ``to assure that Protection System components are
returned to working order following the discovery of failures or
malfunctions during scheduled maintenance.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NERC Petition at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. With respect to implementation, NERC proposes to require
entities to fully comply with Requirements R1, R2 and R5 within 12
months of regulatory approval (or 24 months from the date of NERC Board
approval where no regulatory approval is required).\23\ Accordingly,
applicable entities must develop their revised protection system
maintenance program within one year.\24\ NERC's proposed implementation
plan would allow a more lengthy implementation period with respect to
achieving full compliance with the newly-prescribed maintenance
activities and documentation, permitting a transition of maintenance
activities and documentation over time, with the compliance period
scaled to the length of the applicable maximum maintenance
interval.\25\ Thus, for component types with the shortest allowable
maintenance interval (i.e., less than one year, or between one and two
years), entities would be required to fully comply with the new
requirements within 18 months of regulatory approval, and 36 months of
regulatory approval, respectively.\26\ For components types with longer
maintenance intervals (3, 6 and 12 years), NERC proposes to require
compliance over the applicable maintenance interval in equally
distributed steps. For component types with the longest maximum
allowable maintenance interval (i.e., 12 years), entities must be 30
percent compliant within 5 years, 60 percent compliant within 9 years,
and fully compliant within 13 years after regulatory approval.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NERC Petition, Ex. C (Implementation Plan) at 2, 4.
    \24\ See id. at 2.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id. at 4.
    \27\ Id. at 5. NERC notes, however, that ``[o]nce an entity has
designated PRC-005-2 as its maintenance program for specific
Protection System components, they cannot revert to the original
program for those components.'' Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. NERC explains that this implementation program takes into
consideration that certain entities may not currently be performing all
required maintenance activities specified in proposed PRC-005-2, and
may not have all the documentation necessary to demonstrate
compliance.\28\ NERC further states that ``it is unrealistic for those
entities to be immediately compliant with the new activities or
intervals,'' and that ``entities should be allowed to become compliant
in such a way as to facilitate a continuing maintenance program.'' \29\
Finally, NERC explains that it developed this step-wise implementation
plan ``in order that entities may implement this standard in a
systematic method that facilitates an effective ongoing Protection
System Maintenance Program.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id. at 1.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    22. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission
proposes to approve Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, the six associated
definitions referenced in the proposed standard, and NERC's proposed
implementation plan. The proposed Reliability Standard appears to
adequately address the Commission directives from Order No. 693 with
respect to: (1) Including maximum allowable intervals in PRC-005; (2)
combining PRC-005, PRC-008, PRC-011, and PRC-017; and (3) considering
whether load serving entities and transmission operators should be
included in the applicability of the PRC-005 Reliability Standard.
Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 should also improve reliability
by reducing the risk of protection system misoperations and
establishing requirements for condition-based and performance-based
maintenance programs where hands-on maintenance intervals are adjusted
to reflect the known and reported condition or the historical
performance of the relevant devices.
    23. However, we believe that further clarification is warranted
with respect to certain aspects of proposed PRC-005-2, including NERC's
proposed approach to enforcement of its requirements. Additional
information is also needed to fully evaluate NERC's proposed targets
for the establishment of performance-based maintenance intervals. As
discussed below, we seek additional information and comments on the
following: (A) Verification of operability and settings upon placement
in-service of new or modified protection systems; (B) use of a four
percent target for countable events in performance-based programs; and
(C) violation severity levels for certain Requirement R1 violations.

A. Verification of Operability and Settings Upon Placement In-Service

    24. As proposed, Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 does not include
separate requirements for protection system commissioning testing for
new or modified equipment (i.e., testing activities necessary to ensure
that new or modified equipment has been built and will function in
accordance with its

design). NERC maintains that such testing is often performed by a
different organization (such as a start-up or commissioning group of
the organization, or a contractor hired to construct and start-up or
commission the facility) than the organization responsible for the on-
going maintenance of the protection system, and that the activities
required for such testing will not necessarily correlate to the
maintenance activities required by the proposed standard.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ NERC Petition, Ex. E (Supplementary Reference and FAQ) at
35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. At the same time, NERC acknowledges that ``a thorough
commission testing program would include, either directly or
indirectly, the verification of all those Protection System attributes
addressed by the maintenance activities specified in the Tables of PRC-
005-2,'' and that ``an entity would be wise to retain commissioning
records to show a maintenance start date.'' \32\ In addition, NERC
states that ``PRC-005-2 assumes that thorough commission testing was
performed prior to a protection system being placed in service.'' \33\
Finally, in discussing whether the initial date for setting the time
clock for maintenance should be the date of commission testing versus
the in-service date, NERC asserts that ``[w]hichever method is chosen,
for newly installed Protection Systems the components should not be
placed into service until minimum maintenance activities have taken
place.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. NERC also notes that an entity ``that requires that
their commissioning tests have, at a minimum, the requirements of
PRC-005-2 would help that entity prove time interval maximums by
setting the initial time clock.'' Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. NERC's petition assumes that components will not be placed into
service until they have been determined to be within the same range of
operability and accuracy as would be required when completing the
maintenance and inspection activities delineated in proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-005-2. However, the Reliability Standard does
not include a requirement to verify that protection system equipment
and components operate at least as accurately as required under the
PRC-005-2 maintenance standards when those components are first placed
in service or are modified. We are concerned that a reliability gap may
exist if entities are not required to demonstrate compliance with PRC-
005-2 standards when relevant equipment or components are placed in
service or modified.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For example, Table 1-1 of PRC-005-2 requires entities to
``verify that settings are as specified,'' to ``verify operation of
the relay inputs and outputs that are essential to proper
functioning of the protection system,'' or to ``verify acceptable
measurement of power system input values'' for particular types of
protective relays. NERC Petition, Ex. B (Proposed Reliability
Standard PRC-005-2) at Table 1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. We note that the failure to verify the accurate functioning of
protection system components when placed in service, or when
subsequently modified, has been identified as a direct cause of
misoperations in several instances, resulting in violations of the
currently-effective PRC-004 standard. For example, Notice of Penalty
filings in Docket Nos. NP11-105, NP11-129, and NP13-37 contain
Reliability Standard PRC-004 violations where protection systems were
placed in service and misoperated.\36\ Accordingly, we seek explanation
from NERC regarding whether and, if so, how it intends to interpret and
enforce Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 to require that newly installed
or modified protection system equipment or components perform at the
same level as is required for subsequent compliance, including
verification of applicable settings as specified whenever a relay is
repaired, replaced, or upgraded with a new firmware version.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In one instance, the Texas Reliability Entity found that:
(1) An entity had incorrectly wired a capacitance coupled voltage
transformer used in the protection scheme when it was replaced,
resulting in approximately 20 misoperations; and (2) an entity had
incorrectly wired and set a protective relay system compounded by
contractor or consultant design errors, leading to five
misoperations, in violation of its commissioning verification
procedures, which called for end-to-end testing of the trip output
logic wiring and trip testing, and posing a moderate risk to the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System. See Notice of Penalty
regarding American Electric Power Service Corp., Docket No. NP13-37-
000 (filed May 30, 2013). See also Notice of Penalty filings in
Docket Nos. NP11-105 (incorrect CT wiring configuration led to
misoperations) and NP11-129 (failure by a contractor relay
technician to remove a shorting screw after testing of relay led to
misoperation).
    \37\ The Commission believes that vendor-issued firmware
upgrades for microprocessor relays are common, and verification of
settings whenever an upgrade is installed is critical for proper
relay performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. If NERC does not believe that it can interpret and enforce the
proposed Reliability Standard to include such a requirement, we seek
comment on whether the proposed standard should be modified to address
our underlying concern, i.e., verification that newly-commissioned or
modified equipment and components meet the same requirements specified
for subsequent maintenance and testing in the proposed Reliability
Standard.

B. Four Percent Target for Countable Events in Performance-Based
Program

    29. Pursuant to Requirement R2 of proposed Reliability Standard
PRC-005-2, responsible entities may choose to establish performance-
based maintenance intervals for individual component types, according
to the procedures set out in Attachment A of the standard. According to
the Attachment A procedures, the responsible entity must first develop
a list of components to be included in the designated segment (with a
minimum population of 60 components).\38\ Using that analysis and
looking at the greater of either the last 30 components maintained or
all components maintained within the segment over the last year, the
responsible entity must set a maximum allowable interval for each
segment so that countable events will occur on no more than four
percent of the components within that segment. In addition, the
maintenance history of the segment is to be reviewed at least annually
to determine the overall performance of the segment, and, if the four
percent target is not met, the entity is required to develop and
implement an action plan to reduce countable events to less than four
percent within three years.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Until such time as the entity has performed and analyzed
the required maintenance activities applicable to the segment for at
least 30 individual components, it must maintain the segment using
PRC-005-2's time-based intervals, as specified in Tables 1-1 to 1-5,
2 and 3, i.e., it cannot adopt a performance-based interval until it
has performed and analyzed the maintenance history for a minimum
pool of components.
    \39\ As NERC explains in the Supplementary Reference and FAQ
(Ex. E) attached to its petition, entities using a performance-based
program must not only ``demonstrate how they analyze findings of
performance failures and aberrations'' but must also ``implement
continuous improvement actions'' to meet the failure rate targets.
See NERC Petition, Ex. E at 40. NERC provides examples of the kinds
of methods that can be used to correct segment performance,
including decreasing the maximum allowable interval, identifying
sub-groups of components within the segment that may need more
targeted action, and replacement of poorly performing components
within a segment. Id. at 44. See also id. at 47 (providing an
example calculation of the development and adjustment of a
performance-based interval, showing an immediate adjustment to the
maintenance interval, and consequent increase in number of units
tested annually, when failure rates exceed 4 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Under the proposed standard, an entity would not be in
violation of Requirement R2 of the standard upon failing to achieve a 4
percent or less failure rate for a given segment in the first year the
failure occurs, but would violate Requirement R2 if: (1) The entity
could not show that the interval selected was initially set to expect a
failure rate of no more than 4 percent; (2) the entity fails to make
immediate

changes to its performance-based maintenance program to achieve a 4
percent target within 3 years; or (3) the entity does not actually
achieve a 4 percent failure rate for that segment within 3 years after
adjusting its program.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See generally, id. at 40-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. In the Technical Justification NERC submitted as part of its
petition, NERC explains the basis for selecting a four percent target
for countable events as follows:

    The 4% number was developed using the following:
    General experience of the drafting team based on open
discussions of past performance.
    Test results provided by Consumers Energy for the years 1998-
2008 showing a yearly average of 7.5% out-of-tolerance relay test
results and a yearly average of 1.5% defective rate.
    Two failure analysis reports from Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) where TVA identified problematic equipment based on a
noticeably higher failure of a certain relay type (failure rate of
2.5%) and voltage transformer type (failure rate of 3.6%).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (Technical Justification) at 5.

    32. NERC does not provide any further details about the scope and
specific results of the referenced studies, or a clear explanation of
how the four percent figure was derived from these studies. Moreover,
the referenced studies appear to focus on out-of-tolerance rates for
electro-mechanical protective relays, and NERC provided little to no
support for application of those expected rates to other types of
components.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ An out-of-tolerance condition indicates that the device is
not performing within the manufacturer's specified band of tolerance
or accuracy, but for electro-mechanical protective relays an out-of-
tolerance condition does not imply that the device is not
operational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. While NERC provides some historical support for the use of a
four percent target figure for countable events in setting an
appropriate performance-based maintenance interval for certain
component types (e.g., electro-mechanical protective relays), it is
also not clear whether the four percent rate is appropriate for
component types known to have higher levels of reliability
(particularly microprocessor-based relays, trip coils, and lockout
devices). Microprocessor-based relays, for example, rarely go out-of-
tolerance due to continuously-running self-diagnostic routines.\43\
Thus, these types of relays either operate as installed and set, or, if
faulty, indicate an alarm condition that may disable the device. A four
percent failure rate for any given segment of microprocessor-based
relays could indicate a significant issue with that relay type,
warranting further investigation and possible system-wide replacement
rather than continuation of routine maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. (SEL) indicates
in its 2009 white paper ``SEL Recommendations on Periodic
Maintenance Testing of Protective Relays'' a measurement of hardware
failures of about 0.33% failures per year for microprocessor-based
relays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. In light of NERC's finding in its State of Reliability Report
that protection system misoperations are the leading initiating cause
of disturbance events (other than weather and ``unknown''),\44\ we seek
comment from NERC and other interested parties that provides further
information and technical support for whether failure rates should be
established for each component type rather than relying upon a blanket
rate for all component types. If, in the alternative, a blanket failure
rate is to be established, we seek comment on whether the use of a
blanket four percent failure rate for all component types is better-
suited for setting appropriate performance-based maintenance intervals.
This information could inform a determination whether modification of
the target rate is appropriate. Alternatively, if the technical
information to address our concern is not currently available and
cannot be provided in comments, we propose to direct that NERC study
and submit a report and recommendations based on the study results
concerning the expected failure rates for individual component types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ NERC Report: State of Reliability 2013 at 13 (May 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Correcting Unresolved Maintenance Issues (Requirement R5)

    35. Under Requirement R5, responsible entities must ``demonstrate
efforts to correct identified Unresolved Maintenance Issues.'' An
``unresolved maintenance issue'' is defined as a ``deficiency
identified during a maintenance activity that causes the component to
not meet the intended performance, cannot be corrected during the
maintenance interval, and requires follow-up corrective action.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ NERC Petition at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. According to NERC, the reliability objective of Requirement R5
is to ``assure that Protection System components are returned to
working order following the discovery of failure or malfunctions during
scheduled maintenance,'' \46\ and restoration of a protection system
component to working order is not otherwise explicitly required by the
maintenance activities specified in the PRC-005-2 Tables.\47\ NERC
explains the rationale behind Requirement R5, and the latitude to
complete correction or restoration of a discovered problem outside of
the normal maintenance interval, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. 18.
    \47\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (Technical Justification) at 16 (The
maintenance activities specified in the Tables 1-1 through 1-5,
Table 2, and Table 3 do not present any requirements related to
restoration.'')

    The drafting team does not believe entities should be found in
violation of a maintenance program requirement because of the
inability to complete a remediation program within the original
maintenance interval. The drafting team does believe corrective
actions should be timely but concludes it would be impossible to
postulate all possible remediation projects and therefore,
impossible to specify bounding time frames for resolution of all
possible Unresolved Maintenance Issues or what documentation might
be sufficient to provide proof that effective corrective action has
been initiated. Therefore Requirement R5 requires only the entity
demonstrate efforts to correct the Unresolved Maintenance
Issues.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. at 17.

    37. We agree that allowing entities additional time beyond the
maximum maintenance interval period to complete ``restorative'' action
may be warranted in certain circumstances, including when the
corrective action involves redesign, ordering additional equipment, or
timing corrective work to correspond to planned outages.\49\ However,
we expect that these instances will be limited and, in most
circumstances, entities should have the capability to replace
components and make minor repairs within the maximum maintenance
interval. Our expectation is consistent with the assumptions NERC used
in developing the maximum maintenance intervals for proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, which include an allowance for the
``grace period'' that transmission owners and generation owners often

include in their maintenance programs.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The ``corrective actions'' to be taken by a transmission
owner, generator owner, or distribution provider under PRC-005-2
include potentially time-consuming tasks such as physical repair and
replacement of faulty equipment in the protection system. Notably,
under PRC-001-1, transmission operators and generator operators have
a separate obligation to take ``corrective action'' when a
protective relay or equipment failure reduces system reliability.
``Corrective action'' under PRC-001-1 refers to operator control
actions such as removing the facility without protection from
service, generation redispatch, transmission reconfiguration, etc.,
which actions must be completed as soon as possible and within at
least 30 minutes. See NERC Reliability Standard PRC-001-1; Order No.
693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 1439-1440.
    \50\ See NERC Petition, Ex. F (Technical Justification for
Maintenance Intervals) at 1-2; see also Ex. E (Supplementary
Reference and FAQ) at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Violation Severity Level for R1 Violation--Station Batteries

    38. Under the second sentence of Part 1.1 of Requirement R1, all
batteries associated with station DC supply must be included in a time-
based maintenance program, i.e., they are not eligible for a
performance-based program. NERC explains the rationale behind this
unique treatment of DC station supply batteries as follows:

    Batteries are the only element of a Protection System that is a
perishable item with a shelf life. As a perishable item batteries
require not only a constant float charge to maintain their freshness
(charge), but periodic inspection to determine if there are problems
associated with their aging process and testing to see if they are
maintaining a charge or can still deliver their rated output as
required.
. . .
    All of the above mentioned factors and several more not
discussed here are beyond the control of the Functional Entities
that want to use a performance-based maintenance (PBM) program for
its Protection Systems. These inherent variances in the aging
process of a battery cell make establishment of a designated segment
based on manufacturer and type of battery impossible.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (Technical Justification) at 8.

    39. NERC has assigned a ``lower'' violation severity level for the
failure to include applicable station batteries under a time-based
maintenance program. NERC states as to Requirement R1 that ``[t]here is
an incremental aspect to the violation and the [violation severity
levels] follow the guidelines for incremental violations,'' indicating
that NERC believes the Commission's violation severity guideline for
binary requirements is not applicable.\52\ We believe this assignment
is inconsistent with the binary nature of Part 1.1 of Requirement R1,
since entities either satisfy the obligation to include station
batteries in a time-based program or fail to meet the requirement in
its entirety.\53\ Moreover, we believe a low violation severity level
designation does not properly reflect the number of historical
violations associated with station battery maintenance.\54\ We
therefore propose to direct NERC to modify the violation severity level
for violations of this element of Part 1.1 of Requirement R1 to
``severe,'' and seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ NERC Petition, Ex. I (Discussion of Assignments of VRFs and
VSLs) at 10.
    \53\ NERC's assignment appears to be inconsistent with its
approach to the assignment of violation severity levels for binary
requirements, as accepted by the Commission in 2011. See North
American Electric Reliability Corporation, 135 FERC ] 61,166, at P
13 (2011) (``NERC explains that if there are degrees of
noncompliance that result in performance that partially meets the
reliability objective of the requirement such that the performance
or product has some reliability-related value, then the requirement
will have multiple violation severity levels that address a range of
severity utilizing two or more of the four violation severity level
categories. Requirements that are binary, i.e., `pass/fail,' will
have only one violation severity level--severe.''). Here, NERC
indicates that a performance-based maintenance program for station
batteries is untenable, and provides a single violation severity
level relating to this portion of Requirement R1, but assigns it a
``lower'' violation severity level.
    \54\ See, e.g., Docket Nos. NP10-34-000, NP10-160-000, NP11-107-
000, NP11-154-000, NP11-162-000, NP11-164-000, NP11-181-000, NP11-
186-000, NP11-209-000, NP11-215-000, NP11-252-000, NP11-255-000,
NP12-10-000, NP12-18-000, NP12-26-000, NP12-30-000, NP12-36-000,
NP12-40-000, NP13-8-000, NP13-33-000 (all of which include
violations of PRC-005 related to maintenance and testing of station
batteries or battery banks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    40. The following collection of information contained in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\55\ OMB's regulations require approval of
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.\56\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
    \56\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. We solicit comments on the Commission's 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 asks
that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be
supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are
generated.
    42. The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard PRC-
005-2, which will replace PRC-005-1.1b (Transmission and Generation
Protection System Maintenance and Testing), PRC-008-0 (Underfrequency
Load Shedding Equipment Maintenance), PRC-011-0 (Undervoltage Load
Shedding Equipment Maintenance) and PRC-017-0 (Special Protection
System Maintenance and Testing). The proposed Reliability Standard
combines the requirements for maintenance and testing of protection
systems, special protection systems, underfrequency load shedding
equipment, and undervoltage load shedding equipment into one,
comprehensive standard. In addition, the proposed Reliability Standard
sets out minimum maintenance activities and maximum maintenance
intervals for the various components of these systems, but also allows
applicable entities to adopt performance-based maintenance intervals in
certain circumstances.
    43. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 includes specific
requirements about the minimum maintenance activities required for each
type of applicable component, as well as a maximum time interval during
which the maintenance must be completed. Because the specific
requirements were designed to reflect common industry practice,
entities are not expected to experience a meaningful change in actual
maintenance and documentation practices. However, applicable entities
will have to perform a one-time review of their current protection
system maintenance programs to ensure that they meet the requirements
of the revised standard PRC-005-2. Accordingly, all expected
information collection costs are expected to be limited to the first
year of implementation of the revised standard.
    44. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of
June 10, 2013. According to the compliance registry, 544 entities are
registered as distribution providers, 898 entities are registered as
generation owners, and 346 entities are registered as transmission
owners within the United States. However, due to significant overlap,
the total number of these affected entities (i.e., entities registered
as a distribution provider, a generation owner, a transmission owner,
or some combination of these three functional entities) is 867
entities.
    45. Affected entities must perform a one-time review of their
existing protection system maintenance program to ensure that it
contains at a minimum the activities listed in Tables 1 through 3 in
Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 and that the activities are performed

within the applicable maximum interval listed in Tables 1 through 3. If
the existing protection system maintenance program does not meet the
criteria in Reliability Standard PRC-005-2, the entity will have to
make certain adjustments to the program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of      Number of PSMP  Average  number
                            Requirement                                  affected      reviewed  per    of  hours per     Total burden      Total cost
                                                                         entities          entity           review           hours
                                                                                (1)              (2)              (3)              (4)              (5)
                                                                                (1)*(2)*(3)     (4)*$70 \57\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One time review and adjustment of existing protection system                    867                1                8            6,936         $485,520
 maintenance program...............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \57\ This figure is the average of the salary plus benefits for
a manager and an engineer. The figures are taken from the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics at (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-725P, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability
Standard PRC-005-2.
    Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
    OMB Control No: To be determined.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: One time.
    Necessity of the Information: The proposed Reliability Standard
PRC-005-2, if adopted, would implement 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 proposal would ensure that
transmission and generation protection systems affecting the
reliability of the bulk electric system are maintained and tested.
    46. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed revised
Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 and made a determination that approval
of this standard is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information requirements.
    47. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    48. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in
this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the
Commission in this docket 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
the docket number of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No.
RM13-7-000) in your submission.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    49. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \58\ generally
requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 would apply
to 867 individual entities (the number of entities registered as a
distribution provider, a generator owner, a transmission owner, or any
combination of those three functional entities). Comparison of the NERC
Compliance Registry with data submitted to the Energy Information
Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that, of these entities, 230
may qualify as small entities.\59\ Of the 230 small entities, 90 are
registered as a combination of distribution providers, generator owners
and transmission owners, but it is assumed that each entity would have
only one comprehensive program to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \59\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632 (2006). According to the Small Business
Administration, an electric utility is defined as ``small'' if,
including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and
its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not
exceed 4 million megawatt hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. The Commission estimates that, on average, each of the 230
small entities affected will have a one-time cost of $560, representing
a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 8 man-
hours at $70/hour as explained above in the information collection
statement. We do not consider this cost to be a significant economic
impact for small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-2 will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission seeks comment on this certification.

V. Environmental Analysis

    51. 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.\60\ 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.\61\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \61\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Procedures

    52. 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 September 23, 2013. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM13-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and address.
    53. 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 native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper
filing.
    54. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    55. 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

    56. 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.
    57. 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.
    58. 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>
    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17730 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20381-20385]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 20 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management

System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0015 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 20 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Donald J. Barber

    Mr. Barber, 36, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barber understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Barber meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.

Gary M. Bartley

    Mr. Bartley, 55, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bartley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bartley meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Louisiana.

Ryan O. Carman

    Mr. Carman, 26, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Carman meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
North Carolina.

Robert G. Costa

    Mr. Costa, 65, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Costa understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Costa meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.

Robert V. Gray

    Mr. Gray, 38, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gray understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Gray meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Louisiana.

William J. Hannan III

    Mr. Hannan, 59, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hannan understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Hannan meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
New Jersey.

Ryan R. Hetro

    Mr. Hetro, 21, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hetro understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hetro meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Pennsylvania.

Daniel A. Johns

    Mr. Johns, 48, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johns understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johns meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable
non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Pennsylvania.

Gary D. MacFarlane

    Mr. MacFarlane, 59, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. MacFarlane understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. MacFarlane meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Maine.

Ken R. Martin

    Mr. Martin, 61, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martin understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Martin meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

David J. Mathews

    Mr. Mathews, 50, has had ITDM since 1982. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mathews understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Mathews meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has
stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota.

Terrance M. Morrisette

    Mr. Morrisette, 52, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morrisette understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morrisette meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Shane J. Nesheim

    Mr. Nesheim, 40, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nesheim understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nesheim meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from Wisconsin.

Troy D. Ostrowski

    Mr. Ostrowski, 48, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in

impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past
12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ostrowski
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Ostrowski meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota.

Daniel J. Rau

    Mr. Rau, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rau understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rau meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.

Robert E. Roach

    Mr. Roach, 66, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Roach understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roach meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Missouri.

Jeremy D. Schroeder

    Mr. Schroeder, 31, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schroeder understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schroeder meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable
non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio.

Jerry G. Severson, Jr.

    Mr. Severson, 55, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Severson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Severson meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Kelly R. Troll

    Mr. Troll, 53, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Troll understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Troll meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Milfred R. Unruh

    Mr. Unruh, 68, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Unruh understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Unruh meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Mississippi.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) \1\. The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of

limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed
medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: March 26, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-07878 Filed 4-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76939]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-10-000]

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of
Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 31, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL17-10-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and
reasonableness of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s
depreciation rates. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 157 FERC ]
61,068 (2016).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-10-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-10-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2016),
within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: October 31, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26709 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P