Rm13-7-000 Nopr (7-24-2013)

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
days or 100 flight hours, whichever occurs
first after the effective date of this AD, check
the manufacturing references of
pyrotechnical cartridges for batch number
and date, and check the cartridges for
electrical continuity and resistance, in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F20–783, Revision 1, dated June 11,
2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON and
MYSTERE–FALCON 20-()5 airplanes); or
Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F200–
128, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for
Model MYSTERE–FALCON 200 airplanes).
(1) P/N 12–12–11707S1–4, with batch up
to 44 inclusive, manufactured before May
2012.
(2) P/N 12–12–11707S2–4, with batch up
to 33 inclusive, manufactured before May
2012.
(3) P/N 12–12–11707S3–4, with batch up
to 44 inclusive, manufactured before May
2012.
(h) Replacement
If, during any check as required by
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, a
discrepancy [excessive resistance or
cartridges references matching (g)(1) through
(g)(3)] is identified, before next flight, replace
the discrepant fire extinguisher bottle
cartridge(s) with a serviceable part, in
accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F20–783, Revision 1, dated June 11,
2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON and
MYSTERE–FALCON 20-()5 airplanes); or
Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F200–
128, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for
Model MYSTERE–FALCON 200 airplanes).
Replacement of discrepant fire extinguisher
bottle cartridges with a serviceable part
terminates the repetitive actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD for that cartridge.

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

(i) Repetitive Checks
At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, repeat
the checks required by paragraph (g) of this
AD.
(1) For airplanes equipped with fire
extinguisher bottle cartridges having P/N 12–
12–11707S3–4, having a batch number, and
manufacturing date, as listed in paragraph
(g)(3) of this AD, at intervals not to exceed
65 days.
(2) For airplanes equipped with fire
extinguisher bottle cartridges having P/N 12–
12–11707S1–4 or P/N 12–12–11707S2–4,
having a batch number, and manufacturing
date, as listed in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of
this AD, at intervals not to exceed 12 months.
(j) Replacement
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this
AD: Within 30 months after installation of an
affected fire extinguisher bottle cartridge on
an airplane, or within 36 months since
cartridge manufacturing date, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
replace each affected fire extinguisher bottle
cartridge listed in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
and (g)(3) of this AD, with a serviceable part,
in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service
Bulletin F20–783, Revision 1, dated June 11,
2012 (for Model FAN JET FALCON and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

MYSTERE–FALCON 20-()5 airplanes); or
Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F200–
128, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for
Model MYSTERE–FALCON 200 airplanes).
Replacing the affected fire extinguisher bottle
cartridge with a serviceable part as required
by paragraph (h) or (j) of this AD, terminates
the repetitive actions required by paragraph
(i) of this AD for that cartridge.
(k) Parts Installation Prohibition
As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install any fire extinguisher
bottle cartridge having a part number (P/N),
batch number, and manufacturing date as
listed in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of
this AD, on any airplane.
(l) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the International Branch, send it to ATTN:
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–
3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425)
227–1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference
this AD.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(m) Related Information
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2012–0190, dated
September 24, 2012; and the service bulletins
specified in (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this
AD, for related information.
(i) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F20–783, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012 (for
Model FAN JET FALCON and MYSTERE–
FALCON 20-()5 airplanes);
(ii) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin
F200–128, Revision 1, dated June 11, 2012
(for Model MYSTERE–FALCON 200
airplanes).
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone 201–440–6700; Internet http://
www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may review

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44475

copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 12,
2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–17765 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM13–7–000]

Protection System Maintenance
Reliability Standard
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

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,
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

44476

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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, (301) 665–1391,
[email protected].
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–6362,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

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.
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, performancebased 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
1 16

U.S.C. 824o (2006).
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 Mandatory

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

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. 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
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
3 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1475.
4 Id. 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 & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc.
v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

of Reliability Standards submitted by
NERC, including initial versions of four
protection system and load-sheddingrelated maintenance standards, i.e.,
PRC–005–1, PRC–008–0, PRC–011–0,
and PRC–017–0.7
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
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.
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
7 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
PP 1474, 1492, 1497, and 1514.
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 Interpretation of Protection System Reliability
Standard, 138 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2012) (Order No.
758).

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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.

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

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 currentlyeffective standards into a single
standard, but also addresses the
directives in Order No. 693 related to
those standards.10
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
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)).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

implementation of performance-based
maintenance programs.11 NERC
maintains that the proposed standard
will improve reliability by:
(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

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
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

PO 00000

11 Id.

at 3.

12 Id.
13 Id.

at 11.

14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.

at 12.
at 12–13.

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44477

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. 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
17 Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1469.
18 NERC Petition at 13.
19 Id.
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.

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

44478

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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
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

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
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,
23 NERC

Petition, Ex. C (Implementation Plan) at

2, 4.
24 See

id. at 2.

25 Id.
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.
22 NERC Petition at 18.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

at 4.
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.
28 Id. at 1.
29 Id.

PO 00000

26 Id.
27 Id.

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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
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 performancebased 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
30 Id.

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

at 2.

24JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

components are placed in service or
modified.35
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 currentlyeffective 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
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 newlycommissioned or modified equipment
and components meet the same
requirements specified for subsequent
maintenance and testing in the
proposed Reliability Standard.
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.
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44479

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
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
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).

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

44480

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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
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

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-oftolerance 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
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). Microprocessorbased relays, for example, rarely go outof-tolerance due to continuouslyrunning self-diagnostic routines.43
40 See

generally, id. at 40–53.
Petition, Ex. D (Technical Justification)

41 NERC

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

at 5.
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-oftolerance condition does not imply that the device
is not operational.
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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

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.
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.
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
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
44 NERC Report: State of Reliability 2013 at 13
(May 2013).
45 NERC Petition at 14.
46 Id. 18.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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:
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

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
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.’’)
48 Id. at 17.
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.

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
include in their maintenance
programs.50
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

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

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
50 See NERC Petition, Ex. F (Technical
Justification for Maintenance Intervals) at 1–2; see
also Ex. E (Supplementary Reference and FAQ) at
36.
51 NERC Petition, Ex. D (Technical Justification)
at 8.
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

44481

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

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

44482

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules

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

Requirement

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

One time review and adjustment of existing protection system maintenance program ...............................................

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 forprofit 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 protected], phone: (202)
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
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
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).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

Number of
affected
entities

Number of
PSMP
reviewed
per entity

Average
number of
hours per
review

Total burden
hours

Total cost

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)
(1)*(2)*(3)

(5)
(4)*$70 57

867

1

8

6,936

$485,520

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 protected].
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.
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,
U.S.C. 601–12.
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.

PO 00000

58 5

59 The

Frm 00016

entity will have to make certain
adjustments to the program.

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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.
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
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).

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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

ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1

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 202–
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
or email at [email protected],
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:33 Jul 23, 2013

Jkt 229001

44483

Food and Drug Administration

that office in processing your request.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the draft
guidance.

21 CFR Part 118

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES

[Docket No. FDA–2000–N–0190 (formerly
Docket No. 2000N–0504)]

Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions
and Answers Regarding the Final Rule,
Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in
Shell Eggs During Production,
Storage, and Transportation (Layers
With Outdoor Access); Availability
AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.
ACTION:

Notice of availability.

The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is
announcing the availability of a draft
guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance for
Industry: Questions and Answers
Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention of
Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs
During Production, Storage, and
Transportation (Layers with Outdoor
Access)’’ (the draft guidance). The
document provides guidance to egg
producers on certain provisions
contained in FDA’s final rule entitled,
‘‘Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in
Shell Eggs During Production, Storage,
and Transportation’’ concerning the
management of production systems that
provide laying hens with access to the
outdoors. Laying hens are provided
outdoor access in some production
systems, including certified organic
production systems governed by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
National Organic Program regulations.
DATES: Although you can comment on
any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency
considers your comments on the draft
guidance before it begins work on the
final version of the guidance, submit
electronic or written comments on the
draft guidance by September 23, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic
comments on the draft guidance to
http://www.regulations.gov. Submit
written comments on the draft guidance
to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit
written requests for single copies of the
draft guidance to the Division of Plant
and Dairy Food Safety/Office of Food
Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS–315), Food and
Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or fax
your request to 301–436–2632. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Nancy Bufano, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–316), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,
240–402–1493.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
In the Federal Register of July 9, 2009
(74 FR 33030), FDA issued a final rule
requiring shell egg producers to
implement measures to prevent
Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) from
contaminating eggs on the farm and
from further growth during storage and
transportation, and requiring these
producers to maintain records
concerning their compliance with the
final rule and to register with FDA. The
final rule became effective September 8,
2009, with a compliance date of July 9,
2010, for producers with 50,000 or more
laying hens. For producers with fewer
than 50,000, but at least 3,000 laying
hens, the compliance date was July 9,
2012. The compliance date for persons
who must comply with only the
refrigeration requirements was July 9,
2010. The final rule is codified at 21
CFR part 118.
This draft guidance is being issued
consistent with FDA’s good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
The draft guidance, when finalized, will
represent our current thinking on how
to interpret the requirements in the final
rule with regard to production systems
that provide laying hens with access to
the outdoors, including questions and
answers on coverage; definitions; SE
prevention measures; and
environmental sampling for SE. It does
not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and does not operate to bind
FDA or the public. An alternate
approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.
II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This draft guidance refers to
previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations.
These collections of information are
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections
of information in §§ 118.5, 118.6,
118.10, and 118.11 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0660.

E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM

24JYP1