[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30245-30249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM13-6-000]


Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific 
Requirements of the Disturbance Control Performance Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remand the proposed 
interpretation of Reliability Standard BAL-002-1, Disturbance Control 
Performance, Requirements R4 and R5, submitted to the Commission for 
approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the 
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. Specifically, 
the interpretation addresses whether Balancing Authorities and Reserve 
Sharing Groups are subject to enforcement actions for failing to 
restore Area Control Error within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery 
Period for Reportable Disturbances that exceed the most severe single 
Contingency. The Commission proposes to remand the proposed 
interpretation because it changes a requirement of the Reliability 
Standard, thereby exceeding the permissible scope for interpretations.

DATES: Comments are due July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any 
of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: http://ferc.gov. Documents created 
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native 
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments 
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of 
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of 
the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426. (202) 502-8524. [email protected].
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426. (202) 502-8718. [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Issued May 16, 2013)

    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission 
proposes to remand the proposed interpretation of Reliability Standard 
BAL-002-1, Disturbance Control Performance, Requirements R4 and R5 
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric 
Reliability Organization (ERO). Specifically, the interpretation 
addresses whether Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups are 
subject to compliance enforcement actions for failing to restore Area 
Control Error (ACE) within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period 
for Reportable Disturbances that exceed the most severe single 
Contingency (MSSC). For the reasons explained below, the Commission 
proposes to remand the proposed interpretation because it changes the 
requirements of the Reliability Standard, thereby exceeding the 
permissible scope for interpretations. The Commission seeks comments on 
its proposal.

I. Background

A. Section 215 of the FPA and Standards Development Process

    2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to 
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to 
Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may 
approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or 
modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the 
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential, and in the public

[[Page 30246]]

interest.\1\ Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced 
by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission 
independently.\2\ Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission 
established a process to select and certify an ERO,\3\ and subsequently 
certified NERC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
    \2\ Id. 824o(e)(3).
    \3\ Rules 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).
    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd 
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In March 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, evaluating 
107 Reliability Standards, including the Disturbance Control 
Performance (BAL-002-0) Reliability Standard.\5\ In Order No. 693, the 
Commission approved BAL-002-0. In addition, pursuant to section 
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed the ERO to develop a 
modification to BAL-002-0 through the Reliability Standards development 
process that: (1) Includes a Requirement that explicitly provides that 
Demand Side Management may be used as a resource for contingency 
reserves; (2) develops a continent-wide contingency reserve policy; and 
(3) refers to the ERO rather than the NERC Operating Committee in 
Requirements R4.2 and R6.2.\6\ On January 10, 2011, the Commission 
approved BAL-002-1 via letter order,\7\ which addressed the third 
directive described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 316, order on 
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \6\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 356.
    \7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 134 FERC ] 61,015 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that all persons ``directly 
and materially affected'' by Bulk-Power System reliability may request 
an interpretation of a Reliability Standard.\8\ In response, the ERO 
will assemble a team with relevant expertise to address the requested 
interpretation and also form a ballot pool. NERC's Rules of Procedure 
provide that, within 45 days, the team will draft an interpretation of 
the Reliability Standard and submit it to the ballot pool. If approved 
by the ballot pool and subsequently by the NERC Board of Trustees 
(Board), the interpretation is appended to the Reliability Standard and 
filed with the applicable regulatory authorities for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, Standard Processes 
Manual, at 27-29. See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 132 
FERC ] 61,200 (2010) (approving revisions to Standards Process 
Manual). On February 28, 2013, in pending Docket No. RR13-2-000, 
NERC submitted proposed revisions to the Standards Process Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Further, NERC's Rules of Procedure state that ``[a] valid 
interpretation response provides additional clarity about one or more 
Requirements, but does not expand on any Requirement and does not 
explain how to comply with any Requirement.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reliability Standard BAL-002-1

    6. The stated purpose of BAL-002-1 is to ``ensure the Balancing 
Authority is able to utilize its Contingency Reserve to balance 
resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency within 
defined limits following a Reportable Disturbance.'' The NERC Glossary 
of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (Glossary) defines Reportable 
Disturbance as ``[A]ny event that causes an ACE change greater than or 
equal to 80% of a Balancing Authority's or Reserve Sharing Group's most 
severe contingency.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NERC Glossary at 56. NERC defines Area Control Error or 
``ACE'' as ``the instantaneous difference between net actual and 
scheduled interchange, taking into account the effects of Frequency 
Bias including correction for meter error.'' Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Reliability Standard BAL-002-1 has six Requirements. Most 
relevant to the proposed interpretation, Requirements R3 and R4 
provide:

    R3. Each Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall 
activate sufficient Contingency Reserve to comply with the DCS.
    R3.1. As a minimum, the Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing 
Group shall carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to cover the 
most severe single contingency. All Balancing Authorities and 
Reserve Sharing Groups shall review, no less frequently than 
annually, their probable contingencies to determine their 
prospective most severe single contingencies.
    R4. A Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall meet 
the Disturbance Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery 
Period for 100% of Reportable Disturbances. The Disturbance Recovery 
Criterion is:
    R4.1. A Balancing Authority shall return its ACE to zero if its 
ACE just prior to the Reportable Disturbance was positive or equal 
to zero. For negative initial ACE values just prior to the 
Disturbance, the Balancing Authority shall return ACE to its pre-
Disturbance value.
    R4.2. The default Disturbance Recovery Period is 15 minutes 
after the start of a Reportable Disturbance.

    Also relevant to the proceeding is the Additional Compliance 
Information language in Part D of BAL-002-1, which includes:

    Reportable Disturbances--Reportable Disturbances are 
contingencies that are greater than or equal to 80% of the most 
severe single Contingency . . .
    Simultaneous Contingencies--Multiple Contingencies occurring 
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single 
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies 
exceeds the most severe single Contingency, the loss shall be 
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.

II. NERC's Proposed Interpretation of BAL-002-1 (R4 and R5)

    8. On February 12, 2013, NERC filed a petition (Petition) seeking 
approval of the proposed interpretation of BAL-002-1, developed in 
response to an interpretation request submitted on September 2, 2009 by 
the Northwest Power Pool Reserve Sharing Group (NWPP). NERC explains 
that NWPP requested clarification on the following matters:

    (1) although a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single 
Contingency must be reported by the Balancing Authority or Reserve 
Sharing Group (as applicable), is the Disturbance excluded from 
compliance evaluation for the applicable Balancing Authority or 
Reserve Sharing Group;
    (2) with respect to either simultaneous Contingencies or non-
simultaneous multiple Contingencies affecting a Reserve Sharing 
Group, the exclusion from compliance evaluation for Disturbances 
exceeding the most severe single Contingency applies both when
    (a) all Contingencies occur within a single Balancing Authority 
member of the Reserve Sharing Group, and
    (b) different Balancing Authorities within the Reserve Sharing 
Group experience separate Contingencies that occur simultaneously, 
or non-simultaneously but before the end of the Disturbance Recovery 
Period following the first Reportable Disturbance; and
    (3) the meaning of the phrase ``excluded from compliance 
evaluation'' as used in Section 1.4 (``Additional Compliance 
Information'') of Part D of BAL-002-0 and for purposes of the 
preceding statements is that, with respect to Disturbances that 
exceed the most severe single Contingency for a Balancing Authority 
or Reserve Sharing Group (as applicable), a violation of BAL-002-0 
does not occur even if ACE is not recovered within the Disturbance 
Recovery Period (15 minutes unless adjusted pursuant to BAL-002-0, 
R4.2).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NERC Petition at 7.

    9. A proposed interpretation was first balloted in February 2010, 
but failed to achieve a two-third approval from the ballot body.\12\ 
NERC staff determined

[[Page 30247]]

that any further interpretation could not be developed unless the team 
could consider the measures and the additional compliance elements of 
the standard.\13\ In January 2012 NERC staff told the NWPP their 
interpretation request was ``ineligible'' under the existing rules for 
developing interpretations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NERC Petition, Exh. C (Summary of the Interpretation 
Development Proceedings and Record of Development of Proposed 
Interpretation) at 1-2.
    \13\ Id. at 2. A November 2009 Resolution of the NERC Board that 
pertained to interpretations included the following passage: ``[i]n 
deciding whether or not to approve a proposed interpretation, the 
board will use a standard of strict construction and not seek to 
expand the reach of the standard to correct a perceived gap or 
deficiency in the standard.''
    \14\ NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. ISO/RTO Council appealed this decision, challenging the BAL-
002-1 interpretation process. In a March 2012 letter responding to ISO/
RTO Council, NERC staff stated: ``Given the difficulty in interpreting 
the existing language of the standard, NERC recommends to the [ISO/RTO 
Council] and NWPP that they consider developing and submitting a 
Standard Authorization Request (SAR) to the Standards Committee to 
address their concern.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NERC Petition, Exh. C at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. At its May 2012 meeting, the NERC Board Standards Oversight and 
Technology Committee (SOTC) concluded that ``strict construction for 
the purposes of interpretation was never meant to limit the materials 
considered in developing the interpretation solely to the contents of 
the requirements in a standard, but can include any language in the 
standard, including compliance related sections.'' \16\ The NERC 
Standards Committee assembled another drafting team that developed a 
proposed interpretation that received a 90.34 percent approval vote in 
October 2012. On November 7, 2012, the NERC BOT adopted the proposed 
interpretation of BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In its Petition, NERC states that, in response to NWPP's first 
question, the proposed interpretation clarifies that Balancing 
Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups are not subject to the 15-minute 
Disturbance Recovery Period for Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.
    13. With regard to the second question, NERC explained that the 
proposed interpretation provides that:

    [t]he standard was written to provide pre-acknowledged RSG's the 
same considerations as a single BA for purposes of exclusions from 
DCS compliance evaluation . . . [T]his applies to both multiple 
contingencies occurring within one minute or less of each other 
being treated as a single Contingency or Contingencies that occur 
after one minute of the start of a Reportable Disturbance but before 
the end of the Disturbance Recovery Period.
    The standard, while recognizing dynamically allocated RSGs, does 
NOT provide the members of dynamically allocated RSGs exclusions 
from DCS compliance evaluation on an RSG basis. For members of 
dynamically allocated RSGs, the exclusions are provided only on a 
member BA by member BA basis.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 14-15

    14. In response to NWPP's third question regarding the exclusion 
language in the Additional Compliance Information provision of the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
standard, the drafting team responded:

    The Additional Compliance Information section clearly states: 
``Simultaneous contingencies--Multiple contingencies occurring 
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single 
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies 
exceeds the Most Severe Single Contingency, the loss shall be 
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.''
    Although Requirement R3 does mandate that a BA or RSG activate 
sufficient Contingency Reserves to comply with DCS for every 
Reportable Disturbance, there is no requirement to comply with or 
even report disturbances that are below the Reportable Disturbance 
level. The averaging obligation does incent calculation and 
reporting of such lesser events. If a Balancing Authority were to 
experience a Disturbance five times greater than its most severe 
single Contingency, it would be required to report this Disturbance, 
but would not be required to recover ACE within 15 minutes following 
a Disturbance of this magnitude.
    An excludable disturbance is a disturbance whose magnitude was 
greater than the magnitude of the most severe single contingency. 
Any other proposed interpretation would result in treating BAL-002-0 
as if it required Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing Groups 
to recover ACE (to zero or pre-Disturbance levels, as applicable) 
within the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period without regard to 
Disturbance magnitude. This is inconsistent with (a) the reserve 
requirement specified in R3.1 of BAL-002-0, (b) the text of Section 
1.4 of Part D of BAL-002-0, and (c) the documented history of the 
development of BAL-002-0 . . .\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NERC Petition at 16.

    15. NERC contends that BAL-002-1 is intended to be read as ``an 
integrated whole'' and therefore uses the phrase ``excluded from 
compliance evaluation'' that appears in Part D, Section 1.5 
(``Additional Compliance Information'') as support for concluding that 
the 15-minute Disturbance Recovery Period contained in Requirement R4 
of BAL-002-1 does not apply to Disturbances that exceed the MSSC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NERC Petition at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. NERC asserts that ``the proposed interpretation is necessary to 
prevent Registered Entities from shedding load to avoid possible 
violations of BAL-002, a result that is inconsistent with reliability 
principles.'' \20\ NERC further asserts that ``[i]f the Reliability 
Standard is interpreted to require that ACE be returned to zero even 
for a Disturbance that exceeds the most severe single Contingency, a 
Balancing Authority could be required to take drastic operational 
actions, even when other measures of system reliability (voltage 
stability, normal frequency, operation within system operating limits, 
etc.) indicate otherwise.'' NERC adds that ``a lack of clarity on the 
interpretation of [BAL-002] potentially has significant financial and 
operational impacts on all Balancing Authorities and Reserve Sharing 
Groups.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 3.
    \21\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. NERC asserts that the proposed interpretation ``neither expands 
on any Requirement nor explains how to comply with a Requirement.'' 
\22\ NERC acknowledges that the proposed interpretation differs from 
the PacifiCorp Stipulation and Consent Agreement, in which NERC staff 
and Commission staff determined that PacifiCorp violated BAL-002-0 
Requirement R4 by failing to restore its ACE within the 15-minute 
Disturbance Recovery Period, despite a Disturbance exceeding 
PacifiCorp's MSSC.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Petition at 11 (citing NERC Standards Process Manual at 
27).
    \23\ NERC Petition at 16-17 (citing PacifiCorp, 137 FERC ] 
61,176, at n.5 (2011) (PacifiCorp)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    18. We propose to remand NERC's interpretation of BAL-002-1 because 
it fails to comport with the Commission-approved requirement that 
interpretations can only clarify, not change, a Reliability 
Standard.\24\ Rather, changes to a Reliability Standard must be 
developed through NERC's standards development procedure as prescribed 
in NERC's Rules of Procedure.\25\ As discussed below, NERC's proposed 
interpretation changes Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1 from its plain 
meaning, and also effectively redefines the term Reportable Disturbance 
as defined in the NERC Glossary and used in BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NERC Standard Process Manual at 27 (``[a] valid 
interpretation response provides additional clarity about one or 
more Requirements, but does not expand on any Requirement . . .). 
The Commission approved the NERC Standards Process Manual in North 
American Electric Reliability Corp., 132 FERC ] 61,200.
    \25\ NERC Standard Process Manual at 12-14 (explaining the 
Standards Authorization Request process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. NERC's proposal interprets the phrase ``excluded from 
compliance

[[Page 30248]]

evaluation,'' the exclusion language in Part D (Additional Compliance 
Information), Section 1.5 of BAL-002-1 as limiting the obligation to 
restore ACE set forth in Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1. As a result, 
while Requirement R4 of BAL-002-1 provides that a Balancing Authority 
or Reserve Sharing Group ``shall meet the Disturbance Recovery 
Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery Period [i.e., 15 minutes] for 
100 percent of Reportable Disturbances,'' the NERC interpretation 
limits Requirement R4 as applicable to only some Reportable 
Disturbances.
    20. Stated differently, while the term ``Reportable Disturbance'' 
is defined by NERC as ``contingencies that are greater than or equal to 
80% of the most severe single contingency,'' the NERC interpretation 
changes the term to mean contingencies that are greater than or equal 
to 80 percent of the most severe single contingency but no greater than 
100 percent of the most severe single contingency.\26\ In sum, the 
proposed interpretation would relieve a Balancing Authority or Reserve 
Sharing Group from having to restore ACE within 15 minutes of 
Disturbances that are greater than 100 percent of the most single 
severe Contingency, notwithstanding that BAL-002-1 Requirement R4 
requires that: ``[A] Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group shall 
meet the Disturbance Recovery Criterion within the Disturbance Recovery 
Period for 100% of Reportable Disturbances.'' Thus, NERC's proposal 
goes beyond interpreting and, instead, changes a requirement of the 
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Reliability Standard BAL-002-1, Section D. Compliance, 1.5 
(Additional Compliance Information) defines ``Reportable 
Disturbance'' as ``contingencies that are greater than or equal to 
80% of the most severe single contingency.'' The definition of 
``Reportable Disturbance'' in the NERC Glossary is ``[A]ny event 
that causes an ACE change greater than or equal to 80% of a 
Balancing Authority's or reserve sharing group's most severe 
contingency.'' NERC's proposed interpretation is incompatible with 
both definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. As mentioned above, NERC's proposed interpretation focuses on 
the following provision in Part D, Section 1.5 (``Additional Compliance 
Information'') of BAL-002-1:

    Simultaneous Contingencies--Multiple Contingencies occurring 
within one minute or less of each other shall be treated as a single 
Contingency. If the combined magnitude of the multiple Contingencies 
exceeds the most severe single Contingency, the loss shall be 
reported, but excluded from compliance evaluation.

    NERC's proposal, however, is not adequately supported. NERC 
interprets the exclusion language in the Additional Compliance 
Information section as relieving Balancing Authorities or Reserve 
Sharing Groups from having to comply with the ACE restoration 
obligation in Requirement R4 for certain Disturbances. However, this 
understanding is not supported by Requirement R4 or the Additional 
Compliance Information section. Furthermore, NERC does not explain how 
the proposed interpretation naturally flows from the existing 
provision.
    22. A more natural reading of the standard is that the exclusion 
language in the Additional Compliance Information section applies to 
the Levels of Non-Compliance section contained in BAL-002-1, Part D, 
Section 2, which provides that:

    Each Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing Group not meeting 
the DCS during a calendar quarter shall increase its Contingency 
Reserve obligation for the calendar quarter[hellip]following the 
evaluation by the NERC or Compliance Monitor[hellip] The increase 
shall be directly proportional to the non-compliance with the DCS in 
the preceding quarter. This adjustment [hellip] is an additional 
percentage of reserve needed beyond the most severe single 
Contingency.''

    This language indicates that each Balancing Authority or Reserve 
Sharing Group is subject to a compliance evaluation conducted by ``the 
NERC or Compliance Monitor'' to determine whether it has complied with 
the Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) and, if the Balancing Authority 
or Reserve Sharing Group has not complied, make a temporary upward 
adjustment to its Contingency Reserve. The exclusion language in the 
Additional Compliance Information section provides that, for multiple 
contingency Disturbances, the Balancing Authority or Reserve Sharing 
Group must report the event, but may exclude it from the evaluation of 
whether an upward adjustment in Contingency Reserves is warranted. NERC 
does not explain why the exclusion language in the Additional 
Compliance Information section applies to the ACE restoration 
obligation in Requirement R4 rather than the reserve obligation review 
process described in the Levels of Non-Compliance section of BAL-002-1. 
Thus, while NERC advocates reading the Reliability Standard as ``an 
integrated whole,''\27\ NERC's interpretation fails to address other 
relevant language in BAL-002-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NERC Petition at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Accordingly, we propose to remand NERC's proposed 
interpretation as an impermissible change to BAL-002-1 outside the 
formal standards development process.\28\ The Petition goes beyond a 
clarification by redefining key terms that would change the plain 
language of a requirement. The Commission seeks comments on its 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Our proposal is based on the current wording of BAL-002-1 
and does not prejudge the merits of any formal proposal by NERC to 
replace to or change the wording of BAL-002-1. To the extent NERC 
and its stakeholders have concerns with the requirements of BAL-002-
1, they may seek to address these concerns through the standards 
development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Information Collection Statement

    24. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require 
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of 
information) imposed by an agency.\29\ The information contained here 
is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \30\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in letter 
order RD10-15, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the 
current rulemaking. This proposed rulemaking proposes to remand the 
Interpretation of BAL-002-1. Accordingly, the proposed Commission 
action would not affect the information reporting burden.

V. Environmental Analysis

    26. 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.\31\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this 
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, 
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the 
effect of the regulations being amended.\32\ The actions proposed 
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. 
Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \32\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \33\ 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

[[Page 30249]]

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.\34\ For electric utilities, a firm is 
small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the 
transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for 
sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did 
not exceed four million megawatt hours. The Commission does not expect 
the proposed remand discussed herein to materially change the cost for 
small entities to comply with BAL-002-1. Therefore, the Commission 
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \34\ See 13 CFR 121.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Comment Procedures

    28. 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 July 8, 2013. Comments must refer to 
Docket No. RM13-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, the 
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their 
comments.
    29. 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.
    30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files 
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the 
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are 
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VIII. Document Availability

    32. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12131 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P