Published RM13-8 NOPR 6-28-13

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM13–8–000]

Electric Reliability Organization
Proposal To Retire Requirements in
Reliability Standards
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Commission
proposes to approve the retirement of 34
requirements within 19 Reliability
Standards identified by the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commissioncertified Electric Reliability
Organization. The requirements
proposed for retirement either: Provide
little protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability or are redundant with other
aspects of the Reliability Standards. In
addition, the Commission proposes to
withdraw 41 outstanding Commission
directives that NERC develop
modifications to Reliability Standards.
The Commission believes that the
identified outstanding directives have
either been addressed in some other
manner, are redundant with another
directive or provide general guidance as
opposed to a specific directive and,
therefore, that withdrawal of these
outstanding directives will have little
impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System. This proposal is part of the
Commission’s ongoing effort to review
its requirements and reduce
unnecessary burdens by eliminating
requirements that are not necessary to
the performance of the Commission’s
regulatory responsibilities.
DATES: Comments are due August 27,
2013.

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 a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable
to file electronically may mail or handdeliver 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

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

ADDRESSES:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

information on the rulemaking process,
see the Comment Procedures Section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office
of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–6840. Michael Gandolfo
(Technical Information), Office of
Electric Reliability, Division of
Reliability Standards and Security,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone: (202) 502–6817.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Issued June 20, 2013)
1. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the
Commission proposes to approve the
retirement of 34 requirements within 19
Reliability Standards identified by the
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commissioncertified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO). The proposed
retirements meet the benchmarks set
forth in the Commission’s March 15,
2012 order that requirements proposed
for retirement either: (1) Provide little
protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability or (2) are redundant with
other aspects of the Reliability
Standards.2 Consistent with the
Commission’s proposal in the March
2012 Order, we believe that the
requirements proposed for retirement
can ‘‘be removed from the Reliability
Standards with little effect on reliability
and an increase in efficiency of the ERO
compliance program.’’ 3 We seek
comment on our proposal to approve
the retirement of the 34 requirements
identified by NERC.
2. In addition, we propose to
withdraw 41 outstanding Commission
directives that NERC develop
modifications to Reliability Standards.
In Order No. 693 and subsequent final
rules, the Commission has identified
various issues and directed NERC to
develop modifications to the Reliability
Standards or take other action to
address those issues.4 While NERC has
1 16

U.S.C. 824o(d) (2006).
North American Electric Reliability Corp.,
138 FERC ¶ 61,193, at P 81 (March 2012 Order),
order on reh’g and clarification, 139 FERC ¶ 61,168
(2012).
3 Id. P 81.
4 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120
FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). See also Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Calculation of
Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit
Margins, Transmission Reliability Margins, Total
2 See

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38851

addressed many of these directives, over
150 directives remain outstanding.
Some of the outstanding directives may
no longer warrant action to assure
reliability of the Bulk-Power System and
should be withdrawn. We have
identified 41 outstanding directives to
withdraw based on the following three
guidelines: (1) Whether the reliability
concern underlying the outstanding
directive has been addressed in some
manner, rendering the directive stale;
(2) whether the outstanding directive
provides general guidance for standards
development rather than a specific
directive; and (3) whether the
outstanding directive is redundant with
another directive. The 41 outstanding
directives we propose to withdraw are
listed in Attachment A to this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). The
withdrawal of these directives will
enhance the efficiency of the Reliability
Standards development process, with
little or no impact on Bulk-Power
System reliability.
3. Pursuant to Executive Order 13579,
the Commission issued a plan to
identify regulations that warrant repeal
or modification, or strengthening,
complementing, or modernizing where
necessary or appropriate.5 In the Plan,
the Commission also stated that it
voluntarily and routinely, albeit
informally, reviews its regulations to
ensure that they achieve their intended
purpose and do not impose undue
burdens on regulated entities or
unnecessary costs on those entities or
their customers. The proposal in this
NOPR is a part of the Commission’s
ongoing effort to review its requirements
and reduce unnecessary burdens by
eliminating requirements that are not
necessary to the performance of the
Commission’s regulatory
responsibilities.
I. Background
A. Section 215 of the FPA
4. Section 215 of the FPA requires the
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Transfer Capability, and Existing Transmission
Commitments and Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 729, 129
FERC ¶ 61,155 (2009), order on clarification, Order
No. 729–A, 131 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2010), order on
reh’g and reconsideration, Order No. 729–B, 132
FERC ¶ 61,027 (2010).
5 Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing
Rules, Docket No. AD12–6–000 (Nov. 8, 2011).
Executive Order 13579 requests that independent
agencies issue public plans for periodic
retrospective analysis of their existing ‘‘significant
regulations.’’ Retrospective analysis should identify
‘‘significant regulations’’ that may be outmoded,
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome,
and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them
in order to achieve the agency’s regulatory
objective.

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

38852

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Standards, subject to Commission
review and approval. Once approved,
the Reliability Standards may be
enforced in the United States by the
ERO subject to Commission oversight,
or by the Commission independently.6
Pursuant to the requirements of FPA
section 215, the Commission established
a process to select and certify an ERO 7
and, subsequently, certified NERC as the
ERO.8
B. March 2012 Order
5. In the March 2012 Order, the
Commission accepted, with conditions,
NERC’s ‘‘Find, Fix, Track and Report’’
(FFT) initiative. The FFT process, inter
alia, provides NERC and the Regional
Entities the flexibility to address lowerrisk possible violations through an FFT
informational filing as opposed to
issuing and filing a Notice of Penalty. In
addition, the Commission raised the
prospect of revising or removing
requirements of Reliability Standards
that ‘‘provide little protection for BulkPower System reliability or may be
redundant.’’ 9 Specifically, the
Commission stated:
The Commission notes that NERC’s FFT
initiative is predicated on the view that many
violations of requirements currently included
in Reliability Standards pose lesser risk to
the Bulk-Power System. If so, some current
requirements likely provide little protection
for Bulk-Power System reliability or may be
redundant. The Commission is interested in
obtaining views on whether such
requirements could be removed from the
Reliability Standards with little effect on
reliability and an increase in efficiency of the
ERO compliance program. If NERC believes
that specific Reliability Standards or specific
requirements within certain Standards
should be revised or removed, we invite
NERC to make specific proposals to the
Commission identifying the Standards or
requirements and setting forth in detail the
technical basis for its belief. In addition, or
in the alternative, we invite NERC, the
Regional Entities and other interested entities
to propose appropriate mechanisms to
identify and remove from the Commissionapproved Reliability Standards unnecessary
or redundant requirements. We will not
impose a deadline on when these comments
should be submitted, but ask that to the
extent such comments are submitted NERC,
the Regional Entities, and interested entities

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6 See

16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
Concerning Certification of the Electric
Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No.
672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
8 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v.
FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
9 March 2012 Order, 138 FERC ¶ 61,193 at P 81.
7 Rules

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

coordinate to submit their respective
comments concurrently.10

In response, NERC initiated a review,
referred to as the ‘‘P 81 project,’’ to
identify requirements that could be
removed from Reliability Standards
without impacting the reliability of the
Bulk-Power System.
II. NERC Petition
6. In its February 28, 2013 petition,
NERC seeks Commission approval of the
retirement of 34 requirements within 19
Reliability Standards. NERC asserts that
the 34 requirements proposed for
retirement ‘‘are redundant or otherwise
unnecessary’’ and that ‘‘violations of
these requirements . . . pose a lesser
risk to the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System.’’ 11 In addition, NERC states
that it is not proposing to retire any
Reliability Standard in its entirety, and
the remaining requirements of each
affected Reliability Standard will
remain in continuous effect. NERC
maintains that the requirements
proposed for retirement ‘‘can be
removed [from the Reliability
Standards] with little to no effect on
reliability.’’ 12 NERC also asserts that the
proposed retirement of the 34
requirements ‘‘will allow industry
stakeholders to focus their resources
appropriately on reliability risks and
will increase the efficiency of the ERO
compliance program.’’ 13
7. In addition, in its petition, NERC
provides a description of the
collaborative process adopted by
industry stakeholders to respond to the
Commission’s proposal in paragraph 81
of the March 2012 Order. NERC
maintains that the ‘‘scope of the P 81
project was limited solely to the
removal of requirements in their
entirety that would not otherwise
compromise the integrity of the specific
Reliability Standard or impact the
reliability of the BES.’’ 14 Further, NERC
states that the criteria adopted to
identify potential requirements for
retirement ‘‘were designed so that no
rewriting or consolidation of
requirements would be necessary.’’ 15
8. NERC states that the ‘‘P 81 Team’’
developed three criteria for its review:
(1) Criterion A: An overarching criteria
designed to determine that there is no
reliability gap created by the proposed
retirement; (2) Criterion B: consists of seven
separate identifying criteria designed to
recognize requirements appropriate for

10. NERC maintains that the project
team focused on the identification of
‘‘lower-level facilitating requirements
that are either redundant with other
requirements or where evidence
retention is burdensome and the
requirement is unnecessary’’ because
the reliability goal is achieved through
other standards or mechanisms.17 NERC
asserts that the proposed retirement of
documentation requirements will not
create a gap in reliability because
‘‘NERC and the Regional Entities can
enforce reporting obligations pursuant
to section 400 of NERC’s Rules of
Procedure and Appendix 4C to ensure
that necessary data continues to be
submitted for compliance and
enforcement purposes.’’ 18 NERC asserts
that although the P 81 project proposes
to retire requirements associated with
data retention or documentation, ‘‘the
simple fact that a requirement includes
a data retention or documentation
element does not signify that it should
be considered for retirement or is
otherwise inappropriately designated as
a requirement.’’ 19
11. Based on this approach, NERC
identified the following 34 requirements
17 Id.

at 7.
at 8 (citing North American Electric
Reliability Corp., 141 FERC ¶ 61,241 at P 82 (2012)
(approving proposed revisions to NERC’s Rules of
Procedure)).
19 Id. at 9 (emphasis in original).

at 2.

18 Id.

12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.

PO 00000

9. Specifically, the seven questions
adopted for Criterion C are:
C1: Was the Reliability Standard
requirement part of a FFT filing?
C2: Is the Reliability Standard
requirement being reviewed in an
on-going Standards Development
Project?
C3: What is the VRF of the Reliability
Standard requirement?
C4: In which tier of the 2013 [Actively
Monitored List] does the Reliability
Standard requirement fall?
C5: Is there a possible negative impact
on NERC’s published and posted
reliability principles?
C6: Is there any negative impact on the
defense in depth protection of the
Bulk Electric System?
C7: Does the retirement promote results
or performance based Reliability
Standards?

16 Id.

10 Id.
11 Petition

retirement (administrative; data collection/
data retention; documentation; reporting;
periodic updates; commercial or business
practice; and redundant); and (3) Criterion C:
consists of seven separate questions designed
to assist the P 81 Team in making an
informed decision regarding whether
requirements are appropriate to propose for
retirement.16

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
within 19 Reliability Standards for
potential retirement:
• BAL–005–0.2b, Requirement R2—
Automatic Generation Control
• CIP–003–3, –4, Requirement R1.2—
Cyber Security—Security
Management Controls 20
• CIP–003–3, –4, Requirements R3,
R3.1, R3.2, and R3.3—Cyber
Security—Security Management
Controls
• CIP–003–3, –4, Requirement R4.2—
Cyber Security—Security
Management Controls
• CIP–005–3a, –4a, Requirement R2.6—
Cyber Security—Electronic Security
Perimeter(s)
• CIP–007–3, –4, Requirement R7.3—
Cyber Security—Systems Security
Management
• EOP–005–2, Requirement R3.1—
System Restoration from Blackstart
Services
• FAC–002–1, Requirement R2—
Coordination of Plans for New
Facilities
• FAC–008–3, Requirements R4 and
R5—Facility Ratings
• FAC–010–2.1, Requirement R5—
System Operating Limits
Methodology for the Planning
Horizon
• FAC–011–2.1, Requirement R5—
System Operating Limits
Methodology for the Operations
Horizon
• FAC–013–2, Requirement R3—
Assessment of Transfer Capability for
the Near-term Transmission Planning
Horizon
• INT–007–1, Requirement R1.2—
Interchange Confirmation
• IRO–016–1, Requirement R2—
Coordination of Real-Time Activities
between Reliability Coordinators
• NUC–001–2, Requirements R9.1,
R9.1.1, R9.1.2, R9.1.3, and R1.9.4—
Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination
• PRC–010–0, Requirement R2—
Assessment of the Design and
Effectiveness of UVLS Programs
• PRC–022–1, Requirement R2—UnderVoltage Load Shedding Program
Performance
• VAR–001–2, Requirement R5—
Voltage and Reactive Control
12. NERC also requests that the
Commission approve the
implementation plan, provided as
Exhibit C to NERC’s petition, which
provides that the identified
requirements will be retired
20 NERC explains that although only eight
requirements in the Critical Infrastructure
Protection (CIP) body of Reliability Standards are
proposed for retirement, NERC proposes the
retirement of those eight requirements in both CIP
versions 3 and 4. Therefore, the total number of CIP
requirements proposed for retirement is sixteen.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

immediately upon Commission
approval.
13. NERC states that it will apply the
‘‘concepts’’ from the P 81 project to
improve the drafting of Reliability
Standards going forward. Specifically,
NERC explains that Reliability
Standards development projects ‘‘will
involve stronger examination for
duplication of requirements across the
NERC body of Reliability Standards and
the technical basis and necessity for
each and every requirement will
continue to be evaluated.’’ 21 According
to NERC, requirements that were
proposed and ultimately not included in
the immediate filing will be mapped for
consideration as part of addressing
existing standards projects and five-year
reviews of standards that have not been
recently revised.
III. Discussion
A. Proposed Retirement of Requirements
14. Pursuant to section 215 of the
FPA, we propose to approve the
retirement of the 34 requirements
within 19 Reliability Standards
identified by NERC as just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
In the March 2012 Order, the
Commission explained that ‘‘some
current requirements likely provide
little protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability or may be redundant. The
Commission is interested in obtaining
views on whether such requirements
could be removed from the Reliability
Standards with little effect on reliability
and an increase in efficiency of the ERO
compliance program.’’ 22 In general, the
proposed retirements satisfy the
expectations set forth in the March 2012
Order; namely, the requirements
proposed for retirement either: (1)
Provide little protection for Bulk-Power
System reliability or (2) are redundant
with other aspects of the Reliability
Standards.
15. We agree with NERC that the
elimination of certain requirements that
pertain to the information collection or
documentation will not result in a
reliability gap. Section 400 and
Appendix 4C (Uniform Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Program)
of the NERC Rules of Procedure provide
NERC and the Regional entities the
authority to enforce reporting
obligations necessary to support
reliability.23 This authority, used in the
appropriate manner, justifies retiring

certain documentation-related
requirements that provide limited, if
any, support for reliability. We
anticipate that the retirement of such
requirements will enhance the
efficiency of the ERO compliance
program, as well as the efficiency of
individual registered entity compliance
programs.
16. The specific requirements, NERC’s
rationale supporting retirement, and the
Commission’s proposed approval of the
retirements are outlined below.
Resource and Demand Balancing
Reliability Standards
17. BAL–005–0.2b, Requirement R2—
Automatic Generation Control:
R2.

Each Balancing Authority shall
maintain Regulating Reserve that can be
controlled by AGC to meet the Control
Performance Standard.

18. NERC states that the reliability
purpose of BAL–005–0.2b is ‘‘to
establish requirements for Balancing
Authority Automatic Generation Control
(‘‘AGC’’) necessary to calculate Area
Control Error (‘‘ACE’’) and to routinely
deploy the Regulating Reserve.’’ 24
NERC asserts that the reliability purpose
and objectives of BAL–005–0.2b will not
be affected by the retirement of
Requirement R2.25 Specifically, NERC
states that BAL–005 is related to BAL–
001—Real Power Balancing Control
Performance, and a ‘‘Balancing
Authority must use AGC to control its
Regulating Reserves to meet the Control
Performance Standards (‘‘CPS’’) as set
forth in BAL–001–0.1a Requirements R1
and R2.’’ 26 According to NERC, the
‘‘primary purpose of Requirement R2 is
to specify how a Balancing Authority
must meet [the Control Performance
Standards], i.e., through the use of
[Automatic Generation Control].’’ 27
19. NERC states that, although the
Commission has previously rejected an
argument regarding the potential
redundancy of Requirement R2, ‘‘this
Requirement is redundant in an
operational sense.’’ 28 NERC asserts that,
while a balancing authority may be able
to meet its Control Performance
Standard without automatic generation
control, ‘‘it cannot do so for any
extended period of time, and, therefore,
Balancing Authorities must use
[Automatic Generation Control] to
control Regulating Reserves to satisfy
obligations under BAL–001–0.1a
24 Petition

21 Petition

at 9.
22 March 2012 Order, 138 FERC ¶ 61,193 at P 81.
23 See North American Electric Reliability Corp.,
141 FERC ¶ 61,241 at P 82.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38853

25 Id.

at 12–13.
at 13.

26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

at 14.

28JNP1

38854

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Requirements R1 and R2.’’ 29 NERC
concludes that ‘‘Balancing Authorities
must still have Regulating Reserves that
can be controlled by [Automatic
Generation Control] to satisfy the
[Control Performance Standards] in
BAL–001–0.1a Requirements R1 and
R2’’ if BAL–005–0.2b, Requirement R2
is retired.30
20. We propose to approve the
retirement of BAL–005–0.2b,
Requirement R2 based on NERC’s
assertion that the requirement is
redundant with BAL–001–0.1a,
Requirements R1 and R2. Specifically,
we propose to accept NERC’s
explanation that the obligation to
maintain regulating reserves controlled
by automatic generation control under
BAL–005–0.2b, Requirement R2 is
redundant from an operational
perspective with the obligation to meet
the Control Performance Standards in
BAL–001–0.1a, Requirements R1 and
R2. As NERC notes, although a
balancing authority can meet the
Control Performance Standards without
automatic generation control, it is
reasonable to assume that it cannot
operate in that manner for an extended
period of time and that a balancing
authority must ultimately rely on
regulating reserves controlled by
automatic generation control.
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Reliability Standards
21. CIP–003–3, –4, Requirement
R1.2—Cyber Security—Security
Management Controls:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

R1.2. The cyber security policy is readily
available to all personnel who have
access to, or are responsible for, Critical
Cyber Assets.

22. NERC states that CIP–003 requires
responsible entities to have minimum
security management controls in place
to protect critical cyber assets.
According to NERC, the ‘‘reliability
purpose and objectives of CIP–003 are
unaffected by the proposed retirement
of Requirement R1.2.’’ 31 NERC states
that ‘‘CIP–003 Requirement R1.2 is an
administrative task that requires
Responsible Entities to ensure that their
cyber security policy is readily available
to personnel’’ and that retirement of
Requirement R1.2 will not create a gap
in reliability.32
23. We propose to approve the
retirement of CIP–003–3, -4,
Requirement R1.2 based on NERC’s
explanation that it is an administrative
provision that provides little protection

for Bulk-Power System reliability. As
NERC explains, the training,
procedures, and process related
requirements of the CIP standards
render having the cyber security policy
readily available an unnecessary
requirement.33 Thus, we agree that CIP–
003–3, –4, Requirement R1.2 may be
viewed as redundant with the training
obligations imposed under CIP–004–3a
that require specific training for all
employees, including contractors and
service vendors, who have access to
critical cyber assets. We also agree with
NERC that CIP–003–3, –4, Requirement
R1.2 creates a compliance burden that
outweighs the reliability benefit of
requiring a responsible entity to ensure
that its general cyber security policy is
readily available.
24. CIP–003–3, –4, Requirements R3,
R3.1, R3.2, and R3.3—Cyber Security—
Security Management Controls:
R3.

Exceptions—Instances where the
Responsible Entity cannot conform to its
cyber security policy must be
documented as exceptions and
authorized by the senior manager or
delegate(s).
R3.1. Exceptions to the Responsible Entity’s
cyber security policy must be
documented within thirty days of being
approved by the senior manager or
delegate(s).
R3.2. Documented exceptions to the cyber
security policy must include an
explanation as to why the exception is
necessary and any compensating
measures.
R3.3. Authorized exceptions to the cyber
security policy must be reviewed and
approved annually by the senior
manager or delegate(s) to ensure the
exceptions are still required and valid.
Such review and approval shall be
documented.

25. NERC states that CIP–003 requires
Responsible Entities to have minimum
security management controls in place
to protect critical cyber assets. NERC
asserts that the ‘‘reliability purpose and
objectives of CIP–003 are unaffected by
the proposed retirement of
Requirements R3, and R3.1 through
R3.3.’’ 34 NERC characterizes CIP–003–
3, –4, Requirements R3, R3.1, R3.2, and
R3.3 as administrative tasks and
indicates that the proposed retirement
of these requirements presents no
reliability gap. NERC explains that the
requirements at issue ‘‘only apply to
exceptions to internal corporate policy,
and only in cases where the policy
exceeds a Reliability Standards
requirement or addressees an issue that
is not covered in a Reliability

29 Id.

R4.2. The Responsible Entity shall classify
information to be protected under this
program based on the sensitivity of the
Critical Cyber Asset information.

29. NERC states that CIP–003,
Requirement R4.2 requires responsible
entities to classify information based on
its ‘‘sensitivity.’’ NERC characterizes
35 Id.
36 Id.

30 Id.
31 Petition

Standard.’’ 35 NERC maintains that the
retirement of Requirements R3, R3.1,
R3.2, and R3.3 ‘‘would not impact an
entity’s ability to maintain such an
exception process within its corporate
policy governance procedures, if it is so
desired.’’ 36
26. NERC explains that CIP–003–3,
–4, Requirement R3, R3.1, R3.2, and
R3.3 ‘‘have proven not to be useful and
have been subject to
misinterpretation.’’ 37 Specifically,
NERC states that entities may be
interpreting CIP–003–3, –5,
Requirement R3 and its subrequirements as allowing for an
exemption from compliance with one or
more requirements of a Reliability
Standard. NERC explains that this
misinterpretation has created an
unnecessary burden because entities
have ‘‘allocate[d] time and resources to
tasks that are misaligned with the [CIP]
requirements themselves.’’ 38 In
addition, NERC notes that the
misunderstanding of the requirements
has affected the efficiency of the ERO
compliance program due to ‘‘the amount
of time and resources needed to clear up
the misunderstanding and coach entities
on the meaning of the CIP exception
requirements.’’ 39
27. We propose to approve the
retirement of CIP–003–3, –4,
Requirements R3, R3.1, R3.2, and R3.3
based on NERC’s explanation that
Requirements R3, R3.1, R3.2, and R3.3
impose administrative tasks that
provide little protection for Bulk-Power
System reliability. As NERC notes, the
exception process outlined under CIP–
003–3, –4, Requirements R3, R3.1, R3.2,
and R3.3 only applies to a responsible
entity’s internal corporate policy, and
only in situations where a responsible
entity’s internal corporate policy
exceeds a CIP Reliability Standard
requirement. The retirement of CIP–
003–3, –4, Requirements R3, R3.1, R3.2,
and R3.3 will not affect a responsible
entity’s compliance with the body of the
CIP Reliability Standards.
28. CIP–003–3, –4, Requirement
R4.2—Cyber Security—Security
Management Controls:

33 Id.,

NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Paragraph 81
Technical Whitepaper) at 17.
34 Petition at 17.

at 15.

32 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

37 Id.,

Exhibit E at 21.

38 Id.
39 Id.

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
this task as an ‘‘administrative task’’ that
is redundant with CIP–003–3, –4,
Requirement R4. According to NERC,
Requirement R4 already requires a
Responsible Entity to classify critical
cyber information and the ‘‘only
difference between Requirements R4
and R4.2 is that the subjective term
‘based on sensitivity’ has been added [to
Requirement R4.2], thus, making it
essentially redundant.’’ 40 NERC
maintains that the retirement of R4.2
presents no reliability gap.
30. We propose to approve the
retirement of CIP–003–3, -4,
Requirement R4.2 based on NERC’s
explanation that Requirement R4.2 is
redundant with CIP–003–3, -4,
Requirement R4. Specifically, the only
distinction between CIP–003–3, -4,
Requirement R4.2 and Requirement R4
is the subjective term ‘‘based on the
sensitivity.’’ The obligation in
Requirement R4 that a responsible
entity must identify, classify, and
protect Critical Cyber Asset information
remains even with the retirement of
Requirement R4.2.
31. CIP–005–3a, –4a, Requirement
R2.6—Cyber Security—Electronic
Security Perimeter(s):

because ERO time and resources could
be reallocated to monitor compliance
with the remainder of CIP–005–3a, –4a,
which provides for more effective
controls of electronic access at all
electronic access points into the ESP.’’ 43
34. We propose to approve the
retirement of CIP–005–3a, –4a,
Requirement R2.6 based on NERC’s
explanation that Requirement R2.6
represents an administrative task that
provides little protection for Bulk-Power
System reliability. As NERC notes, the
implementation of an appropriate use
banner as required under CIP–005–3a,
–4a, Requirement R2.6 does not further
the general goal of controlling electronic
access at all electronic access points to
the Electronic Security Perimeter(s). In
addition, Requirement R2.6 has been the
subject of numerous technical feasibility
exceptions due to the fact that not all
devices can support an appropriate use
banner.
35. CIP–007–3, –4, Requirement
R7.3—Cyber Security—Systems
Security Management:

R2.6. Appropriate Use Banner—Where
technically feasible, electronic access
control devices shall display an
appropriate use banner on the user
screen upon all interactive access
attempts. The Responsible Entity shall
maintain a document identifying the
content of the banner.

36. NERC states that Requirement
R7.3 requires the maintaining of records
for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance with disposing of or
redeploying Cyber Assets in accordance
with documented procedures. NERC
asserts, however, that it and the
Regional Entities can require the
production of records to demonstrate
compliance under section 400 of the
NERC Rules of Procedure. Therefore,
NERC maintains that ‘‘Requirement R7.3
is redundant and unnecessary.’’ 44
We propose to approve the retirement
of CIP–007–3, –4, Requirement R7.3.
The retirement of Requirement R7.3 will
not relieve a responsible entity of the
obligation to dispose of or redeploy a
Cyber Asset in the manner set forth in
CIP–007–3, –4, Requirement R7. Should
NERC or the Regional Entities seek to
confirm that a responsible entity is
complying with the substantive
obligations in CIP–007–3, –4,
Requirement R7, they can invoke their
authority under section 400 of the NERC
Rules of Procedure.

R7.3. The Responsible Entity shall maintain
records that such assets were disposed of
or redeployed in accordance with
documented policies.

32. NERC states that the general
purpose of CIP–005–3a, –4a is to ensure
a proper or secure access point
configuration. NERC asserts that the
‘‘implementation of an appropriate use
banner . . . on a user’s screen for all
interactive access attempts into the
Electronic Security Perimeter . . . is an
activity or task that is administrative.’’ 41
NERC states that the implementation of
an appropriate use banner does not
support the general purpose of CIP–
005–3a, –4a and, thus, retirement of the
provision presents no reliability gap.42
33. NERC explains that Requirement
R2.6 has also been the subject of
numerous technical feasibility
exceptions for devices that cannot
support such a banner and, thus, has
diverted resources from more
productive efforts. NERC avers that ‘‘the
Emergency Preparedness and
ERO’s compliance program would
Operations Reliability Standards
become more efficient if CIP–005–3a,
37. EOP–005–2, Requirement R3.1—
–4a [Requirement] R2.6 was retired,
System Restoration from Blackstart
40 Petition at 19.
Services:
41 Id.

at 20.
‘‘appropriate use banner’’ is a notification
presented to the user when accessing a system
through an electronic access control device that is
intended to emphasize the corporate policy on the
appropriate use of the system.
42 An

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

R3.1. If there are no changes to the
previously submitted restoration plan,
43 Id.
44 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

the Transmission Operator shall confirm
annually on a predetermined schedule to
its Reliability Coordinator that it has
reviewed its restoration plan and no
changes were necessary.

38. NERC states that the reliability
purpose of EOP–005–2 is to ensure that
plans, Facilities, and personnel are
prepared to enable system restoration
from blackstart resources to assure that
reliability is maintained during
restoration and priority is placed on
restoring the Interconnection. According
to NERC, the reliability purpose of EOP–
005 will be unaffected by the retirement
of Requirement R3.1.
39. NERC explains that ‘‘EOP–005–2
Requirement R3 currently requires the
Transmission Operator to submit its
restoration plan to its Reliability
Coordinator, whether or not the plan
includes changes.’’ 45 NERC maintains
that, since a transmission operator is
already obligated to review and submit
its restoration plan to its reliability
coordinator annually whether or not
there has been a change, ‘‘EOP–005–2
Requirement R3.1 only adds a separate,
duplicative administrative burden for
the entity to also confirm that there
were no changes[.]’’ 46
40. We propose to approve the
retirement of EOP–005–2, Requirement
R3.1 based on NERC’s explanation that
Requirement R3.1 is redundant with
EOP–005–2, Requirement R3.
Specifically, Requirement R3 requires a
responsible entity to review its
restoration plan and submit the plan to
its reliability coordinator annually. As
NERC notes, Requirement R3.1 adds a
separate, duplicative administrative
burden requiring a transmission
operator to confirm whether or not the
restoration plan reflects any changes.
The retirement of Requirement R3.1 will
not remove the transmission operator’s
obligation to review and submit its
restoration plan to its reliability
coordinator on an annual basis.
Facilities Design, Connections, and
Maintenance Reliability Standards
41. FAC–002–1, Requirement R2—
Coordination of Plans for New
Facilities:
R2.

The Planning Authority, Transmission
Planner, Generator Owner, Transmission
Owner, Load-Serving Entity, and
Distribution Provider shall each retain its
documentation (of its evaluation of the
reliability impact of the new facilities
and their connections to the
interconnected transmission systems) for
three years and shall provide the
documentation to the Regional

45 Id.

at 21.
at 22.

46 Id.

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38855

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

at 23.
at 24.

28JNP1

38856

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Generator Owner’s documentation for
determining its Facility Ratings and its
Facility Rating methodology, the
Transmission Owner or Generator Owner
shall provide a response to that
commenting entity within 45 calendar
days of receipt of those comments. The
response shall indicate whether a change
will be made to the Facility Ratings
methodology and, if no change will be
made to that Facility Ratings
methodology, the reason why.

Reliability Organization(s) and NERC on
request (within 30 calendar days).

42. NERC states that the reliability
purpose of FAC–002 is to avoid adverse
impacts on reliability by requiring
generator owners and transmission
owners and electricity end-users to meet
facility connection and performance
requirements. Specifically, NERC
maintains that ‘‘Responsible Entities
have an existing obligation to produce
the same information required by
Requirement R2 to demonstrate
compliance with Requirement R1 and
its sub-requirements, thus making
Requirement R2 redundant.’’ 47 NERC
concludes that the retirement of
Requirement R2 presents no reliability
gap. NERC asserts that the reliability
purpose of FAC–002 will be unaffected
by the retirement of Requirement R2.
43. We propose to approve the
retirement of FAC–002–1, Requirement
R2 based on NERC’s explanation that
Requirement R2 is redundant with the
compliance obligations imposed by
FAC–002–1, Requirement R1 and its
sub-requirements. While FAC–002–1,
Requirement R2 requires a responsible
entity to retain documentation of the
evaluation of the reliability impact of
new facilities and their connections to
the interconnected transmission systems
for three years, Requirement R1 and its
sub-requirements require a responsible
entity to have evidence and
documentation of the evaluation in
order to show that it is in compliance.
We also note that Part D, Section 1.4 of
FAC–002–1 separately specifies a data
retention period of three years for this
evaluation. The retirement of
Requirement R2 should not result in a
reliability gap on account of the need to
maintain evidence and documentation
to show compliance with FAC–002–1,
Requirement R1.
44. FAC–008–3, Requirements R4 and
R5—Facility Ratings:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

R4.

Each Transmission Owner shall make
its Facility Ratings methodology and
each Generator Owner shall each make
its documentation for determining its
Facility Ratings and its Facility Ratings
methodology available for inspection
and technical review by those Reliability
Coordinators, Transmission Operators,
Transmission Planners and Planning
Coordinators that have responsibility for
the area in which the associated
Facilities are located, within 21 calendar
days of receipt of a request.
R5. If a Reliability Coordinator,
Transmission Operator, Transmission
Planner or Planning Coordinator
provides documented comments on its
technical review of a Transmission
Owner’s Facility Ratings methodology or

45. NERC states that ‘‘the reliability
objective [of FAC–008 is] that facility
ratings produced by the methodologies
of the Transmission Owner or Generator
Owner shall equal the most limiting
applicable equipment rating, and
consider, for example, emergency and
normal conditions, historical
performance, nameplate ratings, etc.’’ 48
NERC asserts that this reliability
objective ‘‘is not significantly or
substantively advanced by FAC–008–3
R4 (available for inspection) and R5
(comment and responsive
comments).’’ 49 NERC states that the
retirement of FAC–008–03,
Requirements R4 and R5 will not create
a reliability gap ‘‘because Transmission
Owners and Generator Owners must
comply with the substantive
requirements of FAC–008–3 regarding
their facility rating methodologies
whether or not the exchange envisioned
by FAC–008–3 R4 and R5 occurs.’’ 50
46. NERC states further that ‘‘neither
FAC–008–3 R4 nor R5 require that the
Transmission Owner and Generator
Owner change its methodology, rather
FAC–008–3 R4 and R5 are designed as
an exchange of comments that may be
an avenue to advance commercial
interests.’’ 51 Therefore, NERC asserts
that FAC–008–3, Requirements R4 and
R5 represent ‘‘an administrative task
that does little, if anything, to benefit or
protect the reliable operation of the BES,
and has the potential to implicate
commercially sensitive issues.’’ 52 NERC
concludes that ‘‘the ERO compliance
program would gain efficiencies by no
longer having to track whether requests
for technical review had occurred,
comments provided and reallocate time
and resources to monitoring the
Transmission Owner’s or Generator
Owner’s adherence to substantive
requirements of FAC–008–3.’’ 53
47. We propose to approve the
retirement of FAC–008–03,
Requirements R4 and R5 based on
NERC’s explanation that Requirements
48 Exhibit
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id.

47 Id.

at 25.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

E at 40.

49 Id.

at 41.

53 Id.

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

R4 and R5 impose an administrative
task that provides little protection for
Bulk-Power System reliability. The
retirement of Requirements R4 and R5
will not relieve a transmission owner or
generator owner of the obligation to
have documentation supporting its
facility ratings methodology.
Requirements R4 and R5, therefore,
impose a compliance burden with little
attendant reliability benefit.
48. FAC–010–2.1, Requirement R5—
System Operating Limits Methodology
for the Planning Horizon:
R5.

If a recipient of the SOL Methodology
provides documented technical
comments on the methodology, the
Planning Authority shall provide a
documented response to that recipient
within 45 calendar days of receipt of
those comments. The response shall
indicate whether a change will be made
to the SOL Methodology and, if no
change will be made to that SOL
Methodology, the reason why.

49. NERC states that the reliability
purpose of FAC–010–2.1 is to ensure
that system operating limits used in the
reliable planning of the bulk electric
system are determined based on an
established methodology.54 NERC
asserts that the reliability purpose of
FAC–010–2.1 will be unaffected by the
retirement of Requirement R5. NERC
states that ‘‘[t]he retirement of FAC–
010–2.1 R5 does not create a reliability
gap, because the Planning Authority
must comply with the substantive
requirements of FAC–010–2.1 whether
or not the exchange envisioned by FAC–
010–2.1 R5 occurs.’’ 55
50. NERC states that ‘‘FAC–010- 2.1
R5 sets forth an administrative task that
does little, if anything, to benefit or
protect the reliable operation of the BES,
and has the potential to implicate
commercially sensitive issues.’’ 56
According to NERC, ‘‘a Planning
Authority’s time and resources would
be better spent complying with the
substantive requirements of FAC–010–
2.1.’’ 57 NERC concludes that ‘‘the ERO
compliance program would gain
efficiencies by no longer having to track
whether requests for technical review
had occurred, comments provided and
reallocate time and resources to
monitoring the Planning Authority’s
54 Id. at 43. The NERC Glossary of Terms Used in
Reliability Standards defines ‘‘system operating
limit’’ as:
The value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes,
Frequency or Volts) that satisfies the most limiting
of the prescribed operating criteria for a specified
system configuration to ensure operation within
acceptable reliability criteria.
55 Exhibit E at 43.
56 Id.
57 Id.

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
adherence to substantive requirements
of FAC–010–2.1.’’ 58
51. We propose to approve the
retirement of FAC–010–2.1,
Requirement R5 based on NERC’s
explanation that Requirement R5
imposes an administrative task that
provides little protection for Bulk-Power
System reliability. The retirement of
Requirement R5 will not relieve a
planning authority of the obligation to
document its system operating limits
methodology under the remaining
provisions of FAC–010–2.1. In addition,
the retirement of Requirement R5 will
not relieve a planning authority from its
obligation pursuant to Requirement R4
of the standard to provide its system
operating limits methodology, including
any changes to the methodology, to the
appropriate entities prior to the effective
date of any such change. Based on the
explanation in NERC’s petition,
Requirement R5 imposes a compliance
burden with little attendant reliability
benefit.
52. FAC–011–2.1, Requirement R5—
System Operating Limits Methodology
for the Operations Horizon:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

R5.

If a recipient of the SOL Methodology
provides documented technical
comments on the methodology, the
Reliability Coordinator shall provide a
documented response to that recipient
within 45 calendar days of receipt of
those comments. The response shall
indicate whether a change will be made
to the SOL Methodology and, if no
change will be made to that SOL
Methodology, the reason why.

53. NERC states that FAC–011–2
Requirement R5 requires that, when a
reliability coordinator receives
comments on its system operating limit
methodology, the reliability coordinator
must respond and indicate whether it
has changed its methodology. According
to NERC, the ‘‘retirement of FAC–011–
2 R5 does not create a reliability gap,
because the Reliability Coordinator
must comply with the substantive
requirements of FAC–011–2 R5 [sic]
whether or not the exchange envisioned
by FAC–011–2 R5 occurs.’’ 59 NERC
maintains that ‘‘FAC–011–2 R5 may
support an avenue to advance
commercial interests.’’ 60
54. NERC states that FAC–011–2,
Requirement R5 sets forth an
administrative task that does little, if
anything, to benefit or protect the
reliable operation of the BES. NERC
asserts that ‘‘[i]nstead of spending time
and resources on FAC–011–2 R5 a
Reliability Coordinator’s time and

resources would be better spent
complying with the substantive
requirements’’ of FAC–011–2.61 NERC
concludes that ‘‘the ERO compliance
program would gain efficiencies by no
longer having to track whether requests
for technical review had occurred,
comments provided and reallocate time
and resources to monitoring the
Reliability Coordinator’s adherence to
substantive requirements’’ of FAC–011–
2.62
55. We propose to approve the
retirement of FAC–011–2, Requirement
R5 based on NERC’s explanation that
Requirement R5 imposes an
administrative task that provides little
protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability. The retirement of
Requirement R5 will not relieve a
reliability coordinator of the obligation
to document its system operating limits
methodology under the remaining
provisions of FAC–011–2. In addition,
the retirement of Requirement R5 will
not relieve a reliability coordinator from
its obligation pursuant to Requirement
R4 of the standard to provide its system
operating limits methodology, including
any changes to the methodology, to the
appropriate entities prior to the effective
date of any such change. Based on the
explanation in NERC’s petition,
Requirement R5 imposes a compliance
burden with little attendant reliability
benefit.
56. FAC–013–2, Requirement R3—
Assessment of Transfer Capability for
the Near-term Transmission Planning
Horizon:
R3.

If a recipient of the Transfer Capability
methodology provides documented
concerns with the methodology, the
Planning Coordinator shall provide a
documented response to that recipient
within 45 calendar days of receipt of
those comments. The response shall
indicate whether a change will be made
to the Transfer Capability methodology
and, if no change will be made to that
Transfer Capability methodology, the
reason why.

57. NERC states that FAC–013–2,
Requirement R3 is a needlessly
burdensome administrative task that
does little, if anything, to benefit or
protect the reliable operation of the BES.
NERC explains FAC–013–2,
Requirement R1 and its associated subrequirements set forth the information
that each Planning Authority must
include when developing its transfer
capability methodology. NERC explains
further ‘‘FAC–013–2 R3 sets forth a
requirement that if an entity comments
on this methodology, the Planning

58 Id.
59 Id.

Authority must respond and indicate
whether or not it will make a change to
its Transfer Capability methodology.’’ 63
NERC concludes, ‘‘while R1 sets forth
substantive requirements, R3 sets forth
more of an administrative task of the
Planning Authority responding to
comments on its methodology.’’ 64
58. NERC states that ‘‘it would seem
unnecessarily burdensome to engage in
the exchange of comments, given there
is no nexus between the exchange and
compliance with the substantive
requirements of FAC–013–2.’’ 65
According to NERC, issues regarding an
entity’s transfer capability methodology
should be raised in the context of the
receipt of transmission services, not the
Reliability Standards.66 NERC asserts
that time and resources would be better
spent complying with the substantive
requirements of FAC–013–2. NERC
concludes that ‘‘the ERO compliance
program would gain efficiencies by no
longer having to track whether requests
for technical review had occurred,
comments provided and reallocate time
and resources to monitoring the
Reliability Coordinator’s adherence to
substantive requirements of FAC–013–
2.’’ 67
59. We propose to approve the
retirement of FAC–013–2, Requirement
R3 based on NERC’s explanation that
Requirement R3 imposes an
administrative task that provides little
protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability. The retirement of
Requirement R3 will not relieve a
planning coordinator of the obligation to
document its transfer capability
methodology under the remaining
provisions of FAC–013–2. In addition,
the retirement of Requirement R3 will
not relieve a planning coordinator from
its obligation pursuant to Requirement
R2 of the standard to provide its transfer
capability methodology, including any
changes to the methodology, to the
appropriate entities prior to the effective
date of any such change. Based on the
explanation in NERC’s petition,
Requirement R3 imposes a compliance
burden with little attendant reliability
benefit.
Interchange Scheduling and
Coordination Reliability Standards
60. INT–007–1, Requirement R1.2—
Interchange Confirmation:
R1.2. All reliability entities involved in the
Arranged Interchange are currently in
the NERC registry.
63 Id.

61 Id.

60 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

at 46.

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00012

at 49.

66 Id.

62 Id.

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

at 48.

64 Id.
65 Id.

at 45.

67 Id.

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38857

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

38858

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

61. NERC states that the reliability
purpose of INT–007–1 is to ensure that
each arranged interchange is checked
for reliability before it is implemented.
NERC maintains that the reliability
purpose of INT–007–1 ‘‘is unaffected by
the proposed retirement of Requirement
R1.2’’ and avers that ‘‘Requirement R1.2
is an administrative task that is now
outdated.’’68
62. Specifically, NERC explains ‘‘[a]t
one time, the identification number
came from the NERC Transmission
System Information Network (‘‘TSIN’’)
system, which is now handled via the
NAESB Electric Industry Registry.’’ 69
NERC explains further that ‘‘under the
E-Tag protocols, no entity may engage in
an Interchange transaction without first
registering with the E-Tag system and
receiving an identification number’’ and
the E-tag identification number is used
to pre-qualify and engage in an
Arranged Interchange.70 NERC
concludes that the task set forth in INT–
007–1 Requirement R1.2 is an outdated
activity that is no longer necessary, and
therefore the proposed retirement of
Requirement R1.2 presents no reliability
gap.
63. We propose to approve the
retirement of INT–007–1, Requirement
R1.2 based on NERC’s explanation that
Requirement R1.2 is an outdated
administrative task that provides little
protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability. The identification of entities
engaging in arranged interchange
transactions is now addressed through
the NAESB Electric Industry Registry,
and the registration for such
transactions is now handled through the
E-Tag system. The retirement of INT–
007–1, Requirement R1.2 will not result
in a gap in reliability.
Interconnection Reliability Operations
and Coordination Reliability Standards
64. IRO–016–1, Requirement R2—
Coordination of Real-Time Activities
Between Reliability Coordinators:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

R2.

The Reliability Coordinator shall
document (via operator logs or other data
sources) its actions taken for either the
event or for the disagreement on the
problem(s) or for both.

65. NERC states that IRO–016
establishes requirements for coordinated
real-time operations, including: (1)
Notification of problems to neighboring
reliability coordinators and (2)
discussions and decisions for agreedupon solutions for implementation.
NERC explains that the reliability
purpose of IRO–016–1 is to ensure that
68 Petition

at 26.

at 26–27.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

Nuclear Reliability Standards
68. NUC–001–2, Requirements R9.1,
R9.1.1, R9.1.2, R9.1.3, and R1.9.4—
Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination:
R9.1. Administrative elements:
R9.1.1. Definitions of key terms used in the
agreement.
R9.1.2. Names of the responsible entities,
organizational relationships, and
responsibilities related to the NPIRs.
R9.1.3. A requirement to review the
agreement(s) at least every three years.

Jkt 229001

R9.1.4.

74 Id.

72 Id.

75 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

A dispute resolution mechanism.

69. NERC states that the reliability
purpose of NUC–001–2 is to ensure the
coordination between nuclear plant
generator operators and transmission
entities for nuclear plant safe operation
and shutdown. NERC explains that
Requirement 9.1 and its subrequirements specify certain
administrative elements that must be
included in the agreement (required in
Requirement R2) between the nuclear
plant generator operator and the
applicable transmission entities.74
NERC maintains that the reliability
purpose of NUC–001–2 is unaffected by
the proposed retirement of
Requirements 9.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3 and
9.1.4.
70. NERC asserts that Requirement
R9.1 and its sub-requirements are
administrative tasks and the proposed
retirement of these Requirements will
not adversely impact reliability. NERC
states further that ‘‘requiring via a
mandatory Reliability Standard the
inclusion of boilerplate provisions is
unnecessarily burdensome relative to
the other significant requirements in
NUC–001–2 that pertain to performance
based reliability coordination and
protocols between Transmission Entities
and Nuclear Plant Generator
Operators.’’ 75 NERC indicates that the
information required by these
requirements is likely in modern
agreements anyway. NERC concludes
that the retirement of NUC–001–2,
Requirement R9.1 and its subrequirements ‘‘creates no reliability
gap.’’ 76
71. We propose to approve the
retirement of NUC–001–2, Requirements
9.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3 and 9.1.4 based on
NERC’s explanation that Requirement
9.1 and its sub-requirements reflect
administrative elements currently
required to be included in the nuclear
plant interface requirements between a
nuclear plant generator operator and
applicable transmission entities. The
administrative elements required under
Requirement 9.1 and its subrequirements do not relate to the
substantive, technical requirements of
NUC–001–2 (i.e., technical requirements
and analysis, operations and
maintenance coordination, and
communications and training), and
provide little protection for Bulk-Power
System reliability.

71 Id.

at 28.
at 28–29.
73 Id. at 29.

69 Id.
70 Id.

each reliability coordinator’s operations
are coordinated such that they will not
have an adverse reliability impact on
other reliability coordinator areas and to
preserve the reliability benefits of
interconnected operations. NERC asserts
that ‘‘Requirement R2 is an
administrative task and the proposed
retirement will not adversely impact
reliability’’ and, ‘‘[t]herefore, the
reliability purpose of IRO–016–1 is
unaffected by the proposed retirement
of Requirement R2.’’ 71
66. In addition, NERC notes that
NERC and the Regional Entities have the
authority to require an entity to submit
data and information for purposes of
monitoring compliance under section
400 of the NERC Rules of Procedure.
NERC asserts, therefore, that ‘‘the
retirement of IRO–016–1 Requirement
R2 does not affect the ability for NERC
and the Regional Entities to require
Reliability Coordinators to produce
documentation to demonstrate
compliance with IRO–016–1
Requirement R1 and its subrequirements.’’ 72 NERC concludes that
‘‘retiring IRO–016–1 Requirement R2
presents no gap to reliability or to the
information NERC and the Regional
Entities need to monitor compliance.’’ 73
67. We propose to approve the
retirement of IRO–016–1, Requirement
R2 based on NERC’s assertion that
Requirement R2 establishes an
administrative task that provides little
protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability. Specifically, the retirement
of IRO–016–1, Requirement R2 will not
interfere with the substantive aspects of
the Reliability Standard found in
Requirement R1. We also note that Part
D, Section 1.3 of the standard
establishes for reliability coordinators a
data retention obligation with respect to
the substantive aspects of the standard.
The retirement of Requirement R2 will
not have an adverse effect on reliability,
nor will retirement inhibit the ability of
NERC or the Regional Entities to seek
documentation to assess compliance
with the reliability standard.

at 30.

76 Id.

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Protection and Control Reliability
Standards
72. PRC–010–0, Requirement R2—
Assessment of the Design and
Effectiveness of UVLS Programs:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

R2.

The Load-Serving Entity, Transmission
Owner, Transmission Operator, and
Distribution Provider that owns or
operates a UVLS program shall provide
documentation of its current UVLS
program assessment to its Regional
Reliability Organization and NERC on
request (30 calendar days).

73. NERC explains that PRC–010–0
requires certain registered entities to
periodically conduct and document an
assessment of the effectiveness of their
under voltage load shedding (UVLS)
program at least every five years or as
required by changes in system
conditions. NERC states that the
purpose of PRC–010–0 is to provide
system preservation measures to prevent
system voltage collapse or voltage
instability by implementing an UVLS
program. NERC asserts that it and the
Regional Entities have the authority
under section 400 of the NERC Rules of
Procedure ‘‘to require an entity to
submit documentation of its current
UVLS program assessment for purposes
of monitoring compliance.’’ 77
74. NERC states further that the
retirement of PRC–010–0, Requirement
R2 does not affect the ability of NERC
and the Regional Entities to require
reliability coordinators to produce
documentation to monitor compliance
with PRC–010–0. Specifically, NERC
explains that PRC–010–0, Requirement
R1 requires entities to ‘‘document an
assessment of the effectiveness of its
UVLS program[.]’’ 78 NERC concludes
that the retirement of PRC–010–0,
Requirement R2 ‘‘presents no reliability
gap.’’ 79
75. We propose to approve the
retirement of PRC–010–0, Requirement
R2 based on NERC’s explanation that
the administrative task imposed under
Requirement R2 is redundant with
NERC and the Regional Entity authority
under section 400 of the NERC Rules of
Procedure. Requirement R1 of PRC–
010–0 sets forth the substantive
requirements for applicable entities to
periodically conduct and document an
assessment of the effectiveness of its
UVLS program. Requirement R2 dictates
that an entity must provide
documentation of its current assessment
to NERC and/or the appropriate
Regional Reliability Organization upon
request. The retirement of PRC–010–0,
Requirement R2 will not hamper the
77 Id.

at 32.

ability of NERC or the Regional Entities
to compel the production of the
assessments required under
Requirement R1 since these entities may
obtain this information pursuant to
section 400 of the NERC Rules of
Procedure.
76. PRC–022–1, Requirement R2—
Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program
Performance:
R2. Each Transmission Operator, LoadServing Entity, and Distribution Provider
that operates a UVLS program shall
provide documentation of its analysis of
UVLS program performance to its
Regional Reliability Organization within
90 calendar days of a request.

77. NERC states that the purpose of
Reliability Standard PRC–022–1 is to
ensure that UVLS programs perform as
intended to mitigate the risk of voltage
collapse or voltage instability in the
bulk electric system. NERC explains that
PRC–022–1, Requirement R2 requires
entities to provide documentation of its
analysis of its UVLS program
performance within 90 days of request.
NERC maintains that the retirement of
Requirement R2 ‘‘does not affect the
ability of NERC to require Reliability
Coordinators to produce documentation
to monitor compliance with PRC–022–
1 Requirement R1 and its subrequirements.’’ 80
78. Specifically, NERC explains that
PRC–022–1, Requirement R1 requires
that the entity document the
performance of its UVLS program.
NERC avers that the retirement of PRC–
022–1, Requirement R2 ‘‘is consistent
with reliability principles and will not
result in a gap in reliability as NERC has
the ability to request [the information
documented under PRC–022–1,
Requirement R2] pursuant to Section
400 of the NERC Rules of Procedure.’’ 81
NERC concludes that ‘‘[t]he ERO
compliance program efficiency will
increase since it will no longer need to
track a static requirement of whether a
UVLS program assessment was
submitted within [90] days of a request
by NERC or the Regional Entity, and
instead, compliance monitoring may
focus on the more substantive
requirements of PRC–022–1.’’ 82
79. We propose to approve the
retirement of PRC–022–1, Requirement
R2 based on NERC’s explanation that
the administrative task imposed under
Requirement R2 is redundant with
NERC’s and the Regional Entities’
authority under section 400 of the NERC
Rules of Procedure. Requirement R1 of
PRC–022–1 sets forth the substantive
80 Id.

requirements for each applicable entity
to document its analysis of the
performance of its UVLS program. The
retirement of PRC–022–1, Requirement
R2 will not hamper the ability of NERC
or the Regional Entities to compel the
production of the analysis required
under Requirement R1 since they may
obtain this information pursuant to
section 400 of the NERC Rules of
Procedure.
Voltage and Reactive Reliability
Standards
80. VAR–001–2, Requirement R5—
Voltage and Reactive Control:
R5.

Each Purchasing-Selling Entity and
Load Serving Entity shall arrange for
(self-provide or purchase) reactive
resources—which may include, but is
not limited to, reactive generation
scheduling; transmission line and
reactive resource switching; and
controllable load—to satisfy its reactive
requirements identified by its
Transmission Service Provider.

81. NERC states that the retirement of
VAR–001–2, Requirement R5 is
consistent with reliability principles
since the requirement is redundant with
the Commission’s pro forma open
access transmission tariff (OATT) and
the reliability objective is achieved via
VAR–001–2, Requirement R2. NERC
notes that Requirement R5 provides for
transmission customers to self-provide
or purchase reactive resources as
required under Schedule 2 of the OATT.
NERC states that a review of
Requirement R5 and Schedule 2
‘‘indicates that the reliability objective
of ensuring that [purchasing-selling
entities] as well as [load serving entities]
either acquire or self provide reactive
power resources associated with
transmission service requests is
accomplished via Schedule 2[.]’’ 83
NERC also explains that ‘‘in the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
region, where there is no FERC
approved OATT, reactive power is
handled via Section 3.15 of the ERCOT
Nodal Protocols that describes how
ERCOT establishes a Voltage Profile for
the grid, and then in detail explains the
responsibilities of the Generators,
Distribution Providers and Texas
Transmission Service Providers (not to
be confused with a NERC TSP), to meet
the Voltage Profile and ensure that those
entities have sufficient reactive support
to do so.’’ 84 NERC maintains that there
is no need to reiterate the obligation to
arrange for reactive resources in VAR–
001–2, Requirement R5.

at 33.

78 Id.

81 Id.

83 Id.

79 Id.

82 Id.

84 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:34 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38859

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

at 36.
at 37.

28JNP1

38860

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

82. In addition, NERC states that the
reliability objective of VAR–001–2 is
also addressed by VAR–001–2,
Requirement R2.85 NERC asserts that
‘‘[t]he Transmission Operator’s
adherence to Requirement R2 is a
double-check for the obligations under
Schedule 2 to ensure there are sufficient
reactive power resources to protect the
voltage levels under normal and
Contingency conditions.’’ 86 NERC adds
that the ‘‘double check’’ under
Requirement R2 ‘‘does not relieve
[purchasing-selling entities] and [load
serving entities] from their obligations
under Schedule 2 of the [open access
transmission tariff] or Interchange
agreements.’’ 87
83. We propose to approve the
retirement of VAR–001–2, Requirement
R5 based on NERC’s assertion that
Requirement R5 is redundant with
provisions of the pro forma OATT.
Specifically, Schedule 2 of the open
access transmission tariff requires
transmission providers to provide
reactive power resources, either directly
or indirectly, and requires transmission
customers to either purchase or selfsupply reactive power resources.88 A
similar requirement is found in the
ERCOT Nodal Protocols that established
the voltage profile for the grid within
the ERCOT region.89 In addition, VAR–
001–2, Requirement R2 requires
transmission operators to acquire
sufficient reactive resources to protect
voltage levels under normal and
contingency conditions. Thus, the
retirement of VAR–001–2, Requirement
R5 will not result in a reliability gap.
84. We seek comment on our proposal
to approve the retirement of the 34
requirements discussed above.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

85 Reliability Standard VAR–001–2, Requirement
R2 provides, inter alia, ‘‘Each Transmission
Operator shall acquire sufficient reactive resources
. . . within its area to protect the voltage levels
under normal and Contingency conditions.’’
86 Petition at 36–37.
87 Id. at 37.
88 See, Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890–
B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), Pro Forma OATT
Schedule 2 (Reactive Supply and Voltage Control
from Generation or Other Sources Service).
89 See ERCOT Nodal Protocols, Section 3.15
(Voltage Support).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

B. Outstanding Directives
85. Since the issuance of Order No.
693, the Commission has issued a
number of directives that require NERC
to take certain actions. In an effort to
make better use of NERC’s and the
Commission’s resources, the
Commission has identified 41 of the
outstanding directives that the
Commission believes are no longer
necessary to assure the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System. As
a result, we propose to withdraw the 41
outstanding directives. Attachment A to
this NOPR identifies each directive and
provides an explanation why we are
proposing to withdraw the directive.90
86. We used the following three
criteria in identifying the 41 outstanding
directives for withdrawal: (1) The
reliability concern underlying the
outstanding directive has been
addressed in some manner, rendering
the directive stale; (2) the outstanding
directive provides general guidance for
standards development rather than a
specific directive; and (3) the
outstanding directive is redundant with
another directive. Each of the 41
outstanding directives identified in
Attachment A satisfies one or more of
these criteria.
87. Therefore, we propose to
withdraw the 41 directives listed in
Attachment A in the interest of
enhancing the efficiency of the ERO
standards development process and
reducing unnecessary burdens. We seek
comment on our proposal to withdraw
the listed directives. In particular, we
seek comment on whether withdrawing
the 41 directives could have a
detrimental effect on the reliability of
the bulk electric system.
IV. Information Collection Statement
88. The information collection
requirements contained in this Proposed
Rule are subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.91 OMB’s
regulations require approval of certain
information collection requirements
imposed by agency rules.92 Upon
approval of a collection of information,
OMB will assign an OMB control
number and expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of this 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. The
Commission solicits 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.
89. The Commission based its
paperwork burden estimates on the
NERC compliance registry as of April
30, 2013.93 According to the registry,
there are 132 balancing authorities, 544
distribution providers, 898 generator
owners, 859 generator operators, 56
interchange authorities, 515 load
serving entities, 80 planning authorities/
planning coordinators, 677 purchasing
selling entities, 21 reliability
coordinators, 346 transmission owners,
185 transmission operators, 185
transmission planners, and 93
transmission service providers.
90. The Commission estimates that
the burden will be reduced for each
requirement as dictated in the chart
below, for a total estimated reduction in
burden of $535,500. The Commission
based the burden reduction estimates on
staff experience, knowledge, and
expertise.
91 44

U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
CFR 1320.11 (2012).
93 The estimates for the retired CIP requirements
are based on February 28, 2013 registry data in
order to provide consistency with burden estimates
provided in the Commission’s recent CIP version 5
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No.
RM13–5–000.
92 5

90 Each directive identified in Attachment A
includes a ‘‘NERC Reference Number.’’ Commission
staff and NERC staff have developed a common
approach to identifying and tracking outstanding
Commission directives. The NERC Reference
Numbers reflect this joint tracking process.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

38861

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Standard, requirement number, and FERC
collection number

Type of respondents

EOP–005–2, R3.1 (FERC–725A) ...................
FAC–008–3, R4 (FERC–725A) ......................
FAC–008–3, R5 (FERC–725A) ......................
FAC–010–2.1, R5 (FERC–725D) ...................
FAC–011–2, R5 (FERC–725D) ......................
FAC–013–2, R3 (FERC–725A) ......................
INT–007–1, R1.2 (FERC–725A) ....................
IRO–016–1, R2 (FERC–725A) .......................
CIP–003–3, –4, R1.2 (FERC–725B) ..............

TOP .....................................
TO, GO ...............................
TO, GO ...............................
PA .......................................
RC .......................................
PC .......................................
IA .........................................
RC .......................................
RC, BA, IA, TSP, TO, TOP,
GO, GOP, LSE,.
RC, BA, IA, TSP, TO, TOP,
GO, GOP, LSE,.
RC, BA, IA, TSP, TO, TOP,
GO, GOP, LSE,.
.............................................

CIP–003–3, –4, R3, R3.1, R3.2, R3.3
(FERC–725B).
CIP–005–3, –4, R2.6 (FERC–725B) ..............
Total .........................................................

91. The above chart does not include
BAL–005–0.2b, Requirement R2; CIP–
003–3, –4, Requirement R4.2, CIP–007–
3, –4, Requirement R7.3, FAC–002–1,
Requirement R2; PRC–010–0,
Requirement R2; PRC–022–1,
Requirement R2; and VAR–001–2,
Requirement R5 because those
requirements were found redundant
with other requirements.96 Since the
action required within them is required
elsewhere there is no change in the
overall burden in retiring these
requirements. Likewise, NUC–001–2,
Requirement R9.1; NUC–001–2,
Requirement R9.1.1; NUC–001–2,
Requirement R9.1.2; NUC–001–2,
Requirement R9.1.3; and NUC–001–2,
Requirement R9.1.4 are not included
because these requirements require that
the applicable entities put boiler plate
language into their agreements that is
normally included in all legal
contracts.97 Since this action will be
taken regardless if it is required by a
NERC Reliability, there is no reduction
in burden.
Titles: FERC–725A, Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power
System; FERC–725B, Mandatory
Reliability Standards for Critical
Infrastructure Protection; FERC–725D,

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Number of
respondents 94
[A]

94 This number was calculated by adding all the
applicable entities while removing double counting
caused by entities registered under multiple
functions.
95 The estimated hourly loaded cost (salary plus
benefits) for an engineer is assumed to be $60/hour,
based on salaries as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) (http://bls.gov/oes/current/
naics2_22.htm). Loaded costs are BLS rates divided
by 0.703 and rounded to the nearest dollar (http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
96 The reporting requirements in these standards
are part of the FERC–725A information collection.
97 The reporting requirements in this standard are
part of the FERC–725F information collection.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Estimated total
annual
reduction in
burden
(in hours)
[A × B]

Estimated total
annual
reduction in
cost
[A × B × $60/
hour 95]

185
1,151
1,151
80
21
80
56
21
325

1
1
1
20
20
8
20
20
1

185
1,151
1,151
1,600
420
1,600
448
420
325

11,100
69,060
69,060
96,000
25,200
96,000
26,880
25,200
19,500

325

1

325

19,500

325

4

1300

78,000

........................

........................

8,925

535,500

Facilities, Design, Connections, and
Maintenance Reliability Standards; and
FERC–725F, Mandatory Reliability
Standards for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination.
Action: Proposed Collection of
Information.
OMB Control Nos: 1902–0244, 1902–
0248, 1902–0247, and 1902–0249.
Respondents: Business or other for
profit, and not for profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
92. Necessity of the Information: This
proceeding proposes to approve the
retirement of the 34 requirements
within 19 Reliability Standards
identified by NERC. The proposed
retirements either: (1) Provide little
protection for Bulk-Power System
reliability or (2) are redundant with
other aspects of the Reliability
Standards. In addition, we propose to
withdraw the 47 currently outstanding
directives listed in Attachment A in the
interest of enhancing the efficiency of
the ERO standard development and
compliance programs, as well as the
efficiency of individual registered entity
compliance programs.
93. Internal review: The Commission
has reviewed NERC’s proposal and
made a determination that its action 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 reduction estimates
associated with the retired information
requirements.
94. 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:

PO 00000

Average
reduction in
burden hours
estimate per
respondent
per year
[B]

Sfmt 4702

[email protected], phone: (202)
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
95. 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 protected].
Please reference one of the OMB Control
Numbers and the docket number of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket
No. RM13–8–000) in your submission.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
96. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 98 generally requires a
description and analysis of proposed
rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
mandates consideration of regulatory
alternatives that accomplish the stated
objectives of a proposed rule and that
minimize any significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business
Administration’s Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical
definition of a small business.99 The
Small Business Administration has
established a size standard for electric
utilities, stating that a firm is small if,
including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation
and/or distribution of electric energy for
98 5

U.S.C. 601–612 (2006).
CFR 121.101 (2012).

99 13

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

38862

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

sale and its total electric output for the
preceding twelve months did not exceed
four million megawatt hours (MWh).100
97. The Commission seeks comment
on the estimated impact of the proposed
reduction of requirements on small
business entities. The Commission
estimates the total reduction in burden
for all small entities to be $36,060. The
Commission estimates that small
planning authorities/planning
coordinators will see a reduction of
$2,400 per entity per year, greater than
for other affected small entities types.101
The Commission does not consider
$2,400 per year to be a significant
economic impact. The Commission
believes that, in addition to the
estimated economic impact, the
proposed retirement of the 34
requirements of mandatory Reliability
Standards will provide small entities
with relief from having to track
compliance with these provisions and
preparing to show compliance in
response to a potential compliance audit
by a Regional Entity or other regulator.
98. Based on the above, the
Commission certifies that the proposed
Reliability Standards will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
no initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is required.
VI. Environmental Analysis
99. 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.102 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
#

Standard

Order No.

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.103 The
actions proposed here fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
VII. Comment Procedures
100. 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 August 27, 2013.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM13–8–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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
Para

on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
VIII. Document Availability
104. 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.
105. 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.
106. 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.
Note: Attachment A will not appear in the
Code of Federal Regulations.

Attachment A

Directive

Justification

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Group A—The reliability concern underlying the outstanding directive has been addressed in some manner, rendering the directive
stale
1 ..........

BAL–006 ..........

693

P 428 ...............

2 ..........

EOP–001 .........

693

P 565 ...............

100 13

CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
burden reduction for planning
authorities/planning coordinators is based on the
retirement of FAC–010–2.2, Requirement R5 and
FAC–013–2, Requirement R3. Based on the NERC
101 The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

‘‘Add measures concerning the accumulation of large inadvertent interchange
balances and levels of non- compliance.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10036).
‘‘The Commission agrees with ISO–NE
that the Reliability Standard should
be clarified to indicate that the actual
emergency plan elements, and not
the ‘‘for consideration’’ elements of
Attachment 1, should be the basis for
compliance. However, all of the elements should be considered when
the emergency plan is put together.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10065).

Compliance Registry and Energy Information
Administration Form EIA–861 data, the
Commission estimates that 5 out of the 80 planning
authorities/planning coordinators meet the
definition of a small entity.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

NERC replaced levels of non-compliance with violation severity levels
(VSLs). NERC has designated VSLs
for BAL–006.
The VSLs listed in EOP–001–2.1b and
the Reliability Standard Audit Worksheet for EOP–001 require evidence
of this consideration.

102 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
103 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2012).

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
#

Standard

3 ..........

INT–004 ...........

4 ..........

Order No.

38863

Para

Directive

Justification

693

P 843 ...............

‘‘Consider adding levels of non-compliance to the standard.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10134).

INT–005 ...........

693

P 848 ...............

‘‘Consider adding levels of non-compliance to the standard.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10135).

5 ..........

MOD–010
through
MOD–025.

693

P 1147 .............

6 ..........

MOD–010 ........

693

P 1152 .............

‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners and operators to provide to the Regional Entity
the information related to data gathering, data maintenance, reliability assessments and other process-type
functions.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10266).
‘‘Address critical energy infrastructure
confidentiality issues as part of the
standard
development
process.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10268).

NERC replaced levels of non-compliance with VSLs. VSLs for INT–004
have been developed and approved
by the Commission.
NERC replaced levels of non-compliance with VSLs. VSLs for INT–005
have been developed and approved
by the Commission.
The concern underlying the directive
has been addressed through section
1600 (Requests for Data or Information) of NERC’s Rules of Procedure.
The Commission approved Section
1600 of NERC’s Rules on February
21, 2008.

7 ..........

MOD–010 ........

693

P 1163 .............

‘‘Direct the ERO to develop a Work
Plan that will facilitate ongoing collection of the steady-state modeling and
simulation data specified in MOD–
011–0.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10270).

8 ..........

PRC–017 .........

693

P 1546 .............

‘‘Require documentation identified in
Requirement R2 be routinely provided
to NERC or the regional entity that includes a requirement that documentation identified in Requirement R2
shall be routinely provided to the
ERO.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10363).

9 ..........

Glossary ..........

693

P 1895 .............

10 ........

Glossary ..........

693

P 1895 .............

‘‘Modification to the glossary that enhances the definition of ‘‘generator
operator’’ to reflect concerns of the
commenters [‘‘to include aspects
unique to ISOs, RTOs and pooled resource organizations’’].’’ (NERC Reference No. 10005).
‘‘Modification to the glossary that enhances the definition of ‘‘transmission
operator’’ to reflect concerns of the
commenters [‘‘to include aspects
unique to ISOs, RTOs and pooled resource organizations’’].’’ (NERC Reference No. 10006).

This directive is no longer necessary in
light of section 1500 (Confidential Information) of NERC’s Rules of Procedure addressing treatment of confidential information.
The concern underlying the directive
has been addressed through NERC’s
Reliability Standards Development
Plan: 2013–2015. This plan was provided to the Commission in an informational filing on December 31,
2012. It contains an action plan to
merge, upgrade, and expand existing
requirements in the modeling data
(MOD–010 through MOD- 015) and
demand data (MOD–016 through
MOD–021) Reliability Standards.
Requirement R2 of PRC–017 already
requires affected entities to provide
documentation of the special protection system program and its implementation to the appropriate Regional
Reliability Organization and NERC
within 30 calendar days of a request.
If either the Regional Entity or NERC
determine that they need and will use
the information on a regular schedule,
they have the authority to establish a
schedule under the current requirement.
The concern underlying the directive
has been addressed through the
NERC registration process. See
Order No. 693 at P 145.

The concern underlying the directive
has been addressed through the
NERC registration process. See
Order No. 693 at P 145.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Group B—The outstanding directive provides general guidance for standards development rather than a specific directive
11 ........

BAL–005 ..........

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

693

Jkt 229001

P 406 ...............

PO 00000

Frm 00018

‘‘The Commission understands that it
may be technically possible for DSM
to meet equivalent requirements as
conventional generators and expects
the Reliability Standards development
process to provide the qualifications
they must meet to participate.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10033).

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

28JNP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

38864

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

#

Standard

12 ........

BAL–006 ..........

13 ........

Para

Directive

Justification

693

P 438 ...............

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

COM–001 ........

693

P 507 ...............

14 ........

MOD–001 ........

729

P 20 .................

15 ........

MOD –001,
–004, –008,
–028, –029,
–030.

729

P 160 ...............

16 ........

MOD–001 ........

729

P 179 ...............

17 ........

MOD–028 ........

729

P 231 ...............

‘‘Examine the WECC time error correction procedure as a possible guide
the Commission asks the ERO, when
filing the new Reliability Standard, to
explain how the new Reliability
Standard satisfies the Commission’s
concerns.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10037).
‘‘Although we direct that the regional reliability organization should not be the
compliance monitor for NERCNet, we
leave it to the ERO to determine
whether it is the appropriate compliance monitor or if compliance should
be monitored by the Regional Entities
for NERCNet User Organizations.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10051).
‘‘We encourage the ERO to consider
Midwest ISO’s and Entegra’s comments when developing other modifications to the MOD Reliability
Standards pursuant to the EROs Reliability Standards development procedure.’’ [See also P 198–199] (NERC
Reference No. 10216).
‘‘In developing the modifications to the
MOD Reliability Standards directed in
this Final Rule, the ERO should consider generator nameplate ratings
and transmission line ratings including the comments raised by Entegra
and ISO/RTO Council.’’ [Also see P
154] (NERC Reference No. 10207).
‘‘The Commission directs the ERO to
consider Entegra’s request regarding
more frequent updates for constrained facilities through its Reliability Standards development process.’’ (see Order No. 729 at P 177 for
Entegra’s comments). (NERC Reference No. 10211).
‘‘The Commission directs the ERO to
develop a modification sub-requirement R2.2 pursuant to its Reliability
Standards development process to
clarify the phrase ‘adjacent and beyond Reliability Coordination areas.’ ’’
(NERC Reference No. 10219).

18 ........

MOD–028 ........

729

P 234 ...............

19 ........

MOD–029 ........

729

P 246 ...............

20 ........

MOD–030 ........

729

P 269 ...............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Order No.

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00019

‘‘The Commission agrees that a graduated time frame for reposting could
be reasonable in some situations. Accordingly, the ERO should consider
this suggestion when making future
modifications to the Reliability Standards.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10220).
‘‘The ERO should consider Puget
Sound’s concerns on this issue when
making future modifications to the
Reliability Standards.’’ [See also P
245] (NERC Reference No. 10222).
‘‘The Commission also directs the ERO
to make explicit such [effective date]
detail in any future version of this or
any other Reliability Standard.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10223).

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph clarifies the Commission’s understanding of the phrase
‘‘adjacent and beyond Reliability Coordination area.’’ Since the Commission’s understanding of the language
is clearly expressed, and the matter
has little impact on reliability, there is
no reason to go forward with the directive.
This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

28JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
#

Standard

21 ........

MOD–024 ........

22 ........

Order No.

38865

Para

Directive

Justification

693

P 1310 .............

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

PER–002 .........

693

P 1375 .............

23 ........

VAR–001 .........

693

P 1863 .............

24 ........

VAR–001 .........

693

P 1869 .............

25 ........

TPL and FAC
series.

705

P 49 .................

‘‘Similarly, we respond to Constellation
that any modification of the Levels of
Non-Compliance in this Reliability
Standard should be reviewed in the
ERO Reliability Standards development process.’’ (NERC Reference
No. 10318).
‘‘Training programs for operations planning and operations support staff
must be tailored to the needs of the
function, the tasks performed and
personnel involved.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10329).
‘‘The Commission expects that the appropriate power factor range developed for the interface between the
bulk electric system and the loadserving entity from VAR–001–1 would
be used as an input to the transmission and operations planning Reliability Standards.’’ (NERC Reference
No. 10441).
‘‘We recognize that our proposed modification does not identify what definitive requirements the Reliability
Standard should use for established
limits and sufficient reactive resources.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10434).
‘‘Direct that any revised TPL Reliability
Standards must reflect consistency in
the lists of contingencies.’’ (NERC
Reference No. 10601).

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph is not a directive to
change or modify a standard.

This paragraph provides guidance on
an ongoing implementation issue and
is not a directive to change or modify
a standard.

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Group C—The outstanding directive is redundant with another directive
26 ........

MOD–012 ........

693

P 1177 .............

27 ........

MOD–012 ........

693

P 1177 .............

28 ........

MOD–012 ........

693

P 1181 .............

29 ........

MOD–013 ........

693

P 1200 .............

30 ........

MOD–014 ........

693

P 1212 .............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00020

‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners, and operators to provide to the Regional Entities the information related to data
gathering, data maintenance, reliability assessments and other process type functions.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10275).
‘‘Develop a Work Plan and submit a
compliance filing that will facilitate ongoing collection of the dynamics system modeling and simulation data.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10279).
‘‘Direct the ERO to address confidentiality issues and modify the standard
as necessary through its Reliability
Standards development process.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10277).
‘‘Direct the ERO to develop a Work
Plan that will facilitate ongoing collection of the dynamics system modeling
and simulation data specified in
MOD–013–1, and submit a compliance filing containing this Work Plan
to the Commission.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10283).
‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners and operators to provide the validated models
to regional reliability organizations.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10288).

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.
This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1152, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.
This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

28JNP1

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

38866

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules

#

Standard

31 ........

MOD–014 ........

32 ........

Para

Directive

Justification

693

P 1212 .............

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

MOD–015 ........

693

P 1221 .............

33 ........

MOD–015 ........

693

P 1221 .............

34 ........

MOD–017 ........

693

P 1247 .............

35 ........

MOD–018 ........

693

P 1264 .............

36 ........

MOD–019 ........

693

P 1275 .............

37 ........

MOD–021 ........

693

1297 ................

38 ........

MOD–021 ........

693

P 1297 .............

39 ........

MOD–024 ........

693

P 1308 .............

40 ........

MOD–024 ........

693

P 1312 .............

‘‘Direct the ERO to develop a Work
Plan that will facilitate ongoing validation of steady-state models and submit a compliance filing containing the
Work Plan with the Commission.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10289).
‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners and operators to provide to the Regional Entity
the validated dynamics system models while MOD–015–0 is being modified.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10291).
‘‘Require the ERO to develop a Work
Plan that will enable continual validation of dynamics system models and
submit a compliance filing with the
Commission.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10292).
‘‘Provide a Work Plan and compliance
filing regarding the collection of information specified under standards that
are deferred, in this instance, data on
the accuracy, error and bias of the
forecast.’’
(NERC
Reference
No.10299).
‘‘Require the ERO to provide a Work
Plan and compliance filing regarding
collection of information specified
under standards that are deferred,
and believe there should be no difficulties complying with this Reliability
Standard.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10303).
‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners and operators to provide to the Regional Entity
information related to forecasts of interruptible demands and direct control
load management.’’ (NERC Reference No. 10305).
‘‘Direct the ERO to provide a Work Plan
and compliance filing regarding collection of information specified under
related standards that are deferred,
and believe there should be no difficulty complying with this Reliability
Standard.’’ (NERC Reference No.
10309).
‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners and operators to provide to the Regional Entity
the information required by this Reliability Standard.’’ (NERC Reference
No. 10313).
‘‘In order to continue verifying and reporting gross and net real power generating capability needed for reliability
assessment and future plans, we direct the ERO to develop a Work Plan
and submit a compliance filing.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10317).
‘‘Direct the ERO to use its authority pursuant to § 39.2(d) of our regulations
to require users, owners and operators to provide this information.’’
(NERC Reference No. 10314).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Order No.

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1163, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

28JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
#

Standard

41 ........

MOD–025 ........

Order No.
693

Para

Directive

Justification

P 1320 .............

‘‘In order to continue verifying and reporting gross and net reactive power
generating capability needed for reliability assessment and future plans,
we direct the ERO to develop a Work
Plan as defined in the Common
Issues section.’’ (NERC Reference
No. 10321).

This directive is redundant with the directive in paragraph 1147, which has
already been addressed and is reflected in section A above.

[FR Doc. 2013–15433 Filed 6–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 876
[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0303]

Gastroenterology-Urology Devices;
Reclassification of Implanted Blood
Access Devices
AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.
ACTION:

Proposed order.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is issuing a
proposed administrative order to
reclassify the implanted blood access
device preamendments class III device
into class II (special controls) and
subject to premarket notification, and to
further clarify the identification. FDA is
proposing this reclassification under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) based on new
information pertaining to the device.
This action implements certain statutory
requirements.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on the proposed
order by July 29, 2013. See section XII
for the proposed effective date of any
final order that may publish based on
this proposed order.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. FDA–2012–N–
0303, by any of the following methods:

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
paper or CD–ROM submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:11 Jun 27, 2013

Jkt 229001

38867

305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Agency name and
Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0303 for this
order. All comments received may be
posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Comments’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring,
MD 20993, 301–796–6527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background—Regulatory Authorities
The FD&C Act establishes a
comprehensive system for the regulation
of medical devices intended for human
use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360c) established three categories
(classes) of devices, reflecting the
regulatory controls needed to provide
reasonable assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of
devices are class I (general controls),
class II (special controls), and class III
(premarket approval).
Under section 513 of the FD&C Act,
devices that were in commercial
distribution before the enactment of the
1976 amendments, May 28, 1976
(generally referred to as preamendments
devices), are classified after FDA has: (1)
Received a recommendation from a
device classification panel (an FDA
advisory committee); (2) published the
panel’s recommendation for comment,
along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device; and (3) published

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

a final regulation classifying the device.
FDA has classified most
preamendments devices under these
procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial
distribution prior to May 28, 1976
(generally referred to as
postamendments devices), are
automatically classified by section
513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III
without any FDA rulemaking process.
Those devices remain in class III and
require premarket approval unless, and
until, the device is reclassified into class
I or II or FDA issues an order finding the
device to be substantially equivalent, in
accordance with section 513(i) of the
FD&C Act, to a predicate device that
does not require premarket approval.
The Agency determines whether new
devices are substantially equivalent to
predicate devices by means of
premarket notification procedures in
section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR Part
807).
On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation
Act (FDASIA) was enacted. Section
608(a) of FDASIA (126 Stat. 1056)
amended the device reclassification
procedures under section 513(e) of the
FD&C Act, changing the process for
reclassifying a device from rulemaking
to an administrative order. Prior to the
enactment of FDASIA, FDA published a
proposed rule under section 513(e)
proposing the reclassification of
implanted blood access devices for
hemodialysis (77 FR 36951; June 20,
2012). FDA is issuing this proposed
administrative order to comply with the
new procedural requirement created by
FDASIA when reclassifying a
preamendments class III device. Also as
required by section 513(e) of the FD&C
Act, FDA has scheduled a panel meeting
to discuss the proposed reclassification
for June 27, 2013 (78 FR 25747; May 2,
2013). The three comments submitted in
response to the proposed rule on
implanted blood access devices for
hemodialysis will be considered under
this proposed administrative order and
do not need to be resubmitted. No
objections to the proposed
reclassification were submitted. This

E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM

28JNP1