[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1490-1520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27736]



[[Page 1489]]

Vol. 87

Tuesday,

No. 7

January 11, 2022

Part II





 Department of Energy





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





Federal Energy Regulatory Commission





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





18 CFR Part 12





Safety of Water Power Projects and Project Works; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 1490]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 12

[Docket No. RM20-9-000; Order No. 880]


Safety of Water Power Projects and Project Works

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) is amending its regulations governing the safety of 
hydroelectric projects licensed by the Commission under the Federal 
Power Act. These regulations will promote the safe operation, effective 
maintenance, and efficient repair of licensed hydroelectric projects 
and project works to ensure the protection of life, health, and 
property in surrounding communities. Specifically, the Commission is 
revising its regulations to: incorporate two tiers of project safety 
inspections by independent consultants, codify existing guidance 
requiring certain licensees to develop an owner's dam safety program 
and a public safety plan, update existing regulations related to public 
safety incident reporting, and make various minor revisions.

DATES: The rule is effective April 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ken Fearon (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-6015, [email protected]
Doug Boyer (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 550, Portland, OR 
97205, (503) 552-2709, [email protected]
Tara DiJohn (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8671, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

 
                                                              Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.
 
I. Background..............................................            4
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking..........................           14
III. Engineering Guidelines................................           15
IV. Discussion.............................................           16
    A. Review, Inspection, and Assessment by Independent              23
     Consultants...........................................
    B. Owner's Dam Safety Program..........................          100
    C. Public Safety and Miscellaneous Updates.............          119
V. Regulatory Requirements.................................          143
    A. Information Collection Statement....................          143
    B. Environmental Analysis..............................          184
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act..........................          185
    D. Document Availability...............................          194
    E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.......          197
 

Order No. 880

Final Rule

(Issued December 16, 2021)

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), 
under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), licenses hydroelectric 
projects that are developed by non-Federal entities including 
individuals, private entities, Indian Tribes, states, municipalities, 
electric cooperatives, and others. Under section 10(c) of the FPA, the 
licensee of any hydroelectric project under the jurisdiction of the 
Commission must conform to ``such rules and regulations as the 
Commission may from time to time prescribe for the protection of life, 
health, and property.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Since early 2017, the Commission has solicited, received, and 
reviewed expert opinions on the structure and implementation of the 
Commission's dam safety program, particularly the provisions for 
independent consultants' safety inspections required under part 12, 
subpart D of the Commission's regulations.\2\ These independent 
consultant safety inspections, commonly referred to as part 12 
inspections, are facilitated by licensees and are in addition to the 
dam safety inspections conducted by Commission staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR pt. 12 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. To address expert recommendations on the part 12 inspection 
process, and to codify guidance issued by the Commission's Office of 
Energy Projects, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections (D2SI) over the 
past several years, the Commission is revising its dam safety 
regulations found in Title 18, part 12 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. In this final rule, the Commission is revising part 12 by 
replacing subpart D in its entirety, adding new subpart F, and making 
minor revisions to subparts A, B, C, and E, as further described below.

I. Background

    4. Section 10(c) of the FPA requires licensees, in pertinent part, 
to ``maintain the project works in a condition of repair adequate . . . 
for the efficient operation of said works in the development and 
transmission of power,'' to ``make all necessary renewals and 
replacements,'' and to ``conform to such rules and regulations as the 
Commission may from time to time prescribe for the protection of life, 
health, and property.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 803(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Pursuant to FPA section 10(c), on December 27, 1965, the 
Commission's predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission (FPC), in 
Order No. 315, promulgated regulations that require licensees to 
provide complete safety inspections of licensed water power project 
works by independent consultants at five-year intervals, or more 
frequently if necessary.\4\ Order No. 315 was intended to supplement 
D2SI staff's inspections of project works with detailed periodic 
inspections overseen by an independent consultant.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Hydroelectric Licensed Projects--Inspections to Insure Safe 
Operation, Order No. 315, 34 FPC 1551 (1965).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On January 21, 1981, the Commission issued Order No. 122 to 
consolidate the Commission's orders, regulations, and practices 
relating to

[[Page 1491]]

project safety under part 12 of the Commission's rules and to revise 
the existing project safety inspection regulations.\6\ The Commission's 
rules related to independent consultant safety inspections have not 
been substantially revised or amended since 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Water Power Projects and Project Works Safety, Order No. 
122, 46 FR 9029 (Jan. 28, 1981), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,225 (1981) 
(cross-referenced at 14 FERC ] 61,041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. To ensure that the Commission's dam safety program remains 
current with the evolving nature of the dam safety field, D2SI staff 
issues, and periodically updates, Engineering Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Hydropower Projects (Engineering Guidelines).\7\ D2SI 
staff has also augmented the part 12 inspection process over the years 
by adding additional inspection components (e.g., the Potential Failure 
Mode Analysis, the Supporting Technical Information Document, and the 
Dam Safety Surveillance and Monitoring Program and Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ D2SI's Engineering Guidelines are available on the 
Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/dam-safety-and-inspections/eng-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In June 2002, D2SI began a licensee pilot program for conducting 
a Potential Failure Mode Analysis \8\ as a component of a part 12 
inspection and issued for comment a draft Chapter 14 of the Engineering 
Guidelines, which would guide licensees in performing this type of dam 
safety analysis. In April 2003, D2SI issued a final Chapter 14 of the 
Engineering Guidelines and required a Potential Failure Mode Analysis 
to be performed during all part 12 inspections. Consistent with this 
requirement, licensees have conducted over a thousand Potential Failure 
Mode Analyses. The Commission is codifying the Potential Failure Mode 
Analysis as part of the scope of a part 12 inspection, specifically 
during a comprehensive assessment and typically at a 10-year interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Potential Failure Mode Analysis is a method to evaluate 
the various ways a dam and its components could possibly fail. 
Generally, this involves identifying possible failure scenarios and 
evaluating those factors that could make the failure mode scenario 
more or less likely to occur. Next, the significance of each 
potential failure mode is determined and a prioritized plan is 
developed to address the most significant potential failure modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On December 14, 2005, the upper reservoir of the Taum Sauk 
Hydroelectric Project No. 2277, a pumped storage project, was 
overtopped during the final pumping cycle, causing a breach of the 
upper reservoir which released over 1 billion gallons of water, 
resulting in personal injury and significant environmental and property 
damage.\9\ Following the December 2005 failure of Taum Sauk Dam, D2SI 
began requiring licensees to develop and maintain an Owner's Dam Safety 
Program, with the goal of ensuring that licensees have a robust and 
focused dam safety program to protect public safety, the environment, 
and project facilities. In August 2012, D2SI staff required all owners 
of high and significant hazard potential dams \10\ to submit an Owner's 
Dam Safety Program.\11\ The Commission is codifying this requirement by 
adding a new subpart F to the Commission's part 12 regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ More information about the Taum Sauk Dam Breach Incident can 
be found on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/dam-safety-and-inspections/taum-sauk-pumped-storage-project-p-2277-dam.
    \10\ Hazard potential is a classification based on the potential 
consequences in the event of failure or misoperation of the dam, 
canal, or water conveyance, and is subdivided into categories (e.g., 
Low, Significant, High). High hazard potential generally indicates 
that failure or misoperation of the project work will probably cause 
loss of human life. Significant hazard potential and low hazard 
potential generally indicate that failure or misoperation will 
probably not cause loss of human life but may have some amount of 
economic, environmental, or other consequences. Hazard 
classifications are based solely on the consequences of dam failure 
and do not in any way reflect the condition of the rated dams.
    \11\ See Commission staff's August 15, 2012 letter to owners of 
high and significant hazard potential dams, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/letter-submit-odsp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. On February 7, 2017, high flows in the Feather River basin 
caused the water level in the Feather River Hydroelectric Project No. 
2100 reservoir to rise at Oroville Dam and, for the first time in 
project history, flow down the emergency spillway, resulting in 
extensive erosion and damage to Oroville Dam's main spillway and 
emergency spillway area.\12\ This event precipitated the evacuation of 
nearly 188,000 residents from the town of Oroville and from other 
downstream communities north of Sacramento, California. Following the 
February 2017 Oroville Dam spillway incident, the Commission required 
the project licensee, California Department of Water Resources 
(California DWR), to convene a team of independent, third-party 
consultants to complete a forensic analysis to determine the cause of 
the incident.\13\ The Oroville Independent Forensic Team Report 
documented the team's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.\14\ 
Several of the Oroville Independent Forensic Team's observations 
related to potential areas for improvement in the Commission's dam 
safety program, particularly the part 12 inspection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ More information about the Oroville Dam spillway incident 
can be found on the Commission's website at https://cms.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/dam-safety-and-inspections/oroville-dam-service-spillway-p-2100.
    \13\ See Commission staff's letter to California DWR regarding 
the emergency repair and board of consultants for Oroville Dam 
spillway, Project No. 2100 (Feb. 13, 2017), https://cms.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Orovilledam.pdf.
    \14\ Independent Forensic Team Report, Oroville Dam Spillway 
Incident (Jan. 5, 2018), https://damsafety.org/content/oroville-independent-forensic-team-releases-final-investigative-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Separately, the Commission convened a FERC After Action Panel 
to review and evaluate the Commission's dam safety program in the 
months following the Oroville Dam spillway incident. The D2SI 
Director's mandate to the FERC After Action Panel was to: ``review 
project documents and history for Oroville Dam . . . .;'' ``review the 
performance of the FERC dam safety program at the Oroville Dam Project, 
which includes both work and actions by FERC staff, and the program 
requirements on the dam owner, such as the [p]art 12 process, the 
[Potential Failure Mode Analyses] process, the Instrumentation and 
Monitoring Program, and Owners Dam Safety Program . . . .;'' ``make 
conclusions regarding any shortcomings in the FERC dam safety program 
implementation at Oroville Dam;'' and if shortcomings are identified, 
recommend ``improvement or changes to the FERC dam safety program to 
ensure that future incidents like Oroville can be avoided.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FERC After Action Panel Assessment of Oroville Spillway 
Incident Causes and Recommendations to Improve Effectiveness of the 
FERC Dam Safety Program (Nov. 23, 2018), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/reportdamsafety.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The FERC After Action Panel Report documented several 
shortcomings of the Commission's dam safety program with respect to its 
implementation at the Oroville Dam Project, and recommended several 
improvements to the part 12 inspection process that could increase the 
likelihood that design and operational deficiencies are detected in 
advance of a major incident.
    13. In light of the Oroville Independent Forensic Team Report and 
the FERC After Action Panel Report findings, the desire to codify 
existing dam safety guidance, and the Commission's authority under FPA 
section 10(c) to promulgate rules protecting life, health, and 
property, the Commission is revising its part 12 dam safety 
regulations, as discussed further below.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The May 2020 failures of the Edenville and Sanford Dams in 
Michigan have resulted in substantial hardship and economic damage. 
A forensic investigation is being undertaken to understand the root 
causes of those failures. The NOPR was substantially complete prior 
to the Michigan dam failures and was not intended to address any 
findings or recommendations that may result from the forensic 
investigation. The Commission will review the findings once the 
investigation is complete.

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

[[Page 1492]]

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    14. On July 16, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking proposing to revise its part 12 regulations to incorporate 
two tiers of independent consultant safety inspections, codify existing 
guidance on developing owner's dam safety programs and public safety 
plans, modify public safety incident reporting requirements, and make 
various minor revisions throughout part 12.\17\ The Commission received 
16 comment letters in response to the NOPR.\18\ Comments were submitted 
by licensees and individuals, some as part of submissions from trade 
associations, including the National Hydropower Association (NHA) and 
the Dam Safety Interest Group of CEATI International (CEATI).\19\ The 
Commission has considered all comments in formulating the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Safety of Water Power Projects and Project Works, 85 FR 
45,032 (July 24, 2020), 172 FERC ] 61,061 (2020) (NOPR).
    \18\ The following entities filed comments on the NOPR: Central 
Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District; Wisconsin Power and 
Light Company; Alaska Electric Light and Power Company; Copper 
Valley Electric Association; City of North Little Rock Electric; 
Alaska Power Association; National Hydropower Association; United 
States Society on Dams; CEATI International, Dam Safety Interest 
Group; American Association for Laboratory Accreditation; Hydropower 
Reform Coalition; Sierra Club; Michigan Department of Environment, 
Great Lakes, and Energy; Schnabel Engineering, Inc.; David L. 
Mathews; and U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. Some of these comments, 
such as those filed by American Association for Laboratory 
Accreditation, Hydropower Reform Coalition, and Sierra Club, raise 
issues that are outside the scope of this rulemaking proceeding and 
are not addressed further in this final rule.
    \19\ NHA and NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, each filed motions 
to intervene in Docket No. RM20-9-000. Intervention is not necessary 
in order to request rehearing of a rulemaking. See, e.g., Limiting 
Authorizations to Proceed with Construction Activities Pending 
Rehearing, Order No. 871-B, 86 FR 26150 (May 13, 2021), 175 FERC ] 
61,098, at n.14 (2021). Accordingly, these motions are unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Engineering Guidelines

    15. The Commission is also in the process of updating its 
Engineering Guidelines by adding new Chapters 15 through 18. On July 
16, 2020, concurrently with issuance of the NOPR, the Commission 
solicited public review and comment by issuing the new guidelines in 
draft format in four separate advisory dockets accessible on the 
Commission's eLibrary website. Chapter 15, in Docket No. AD20-20-000, 
provides licensee guidance for developing and maintaining a Supporting 
Technical Information Document.\20\ Chapter 16, in Docket No. AD20-21-
000, provides licensee guidance on the scope of the part 12D 
independent consultant inspection program. Chapter 17, in Docket No. 
AD20-22-000, provides licensee guidance for conducting a Potential 
Failure Mode Analysis. Chapter 18, in Docket No. AD20-23-000, provides 
licensee guidance for conducting a Level 2 Risk Analysis. Entities that 
filed comments on the draft chapters included: Licensees, consultants, 
and other individuals through trade and other professional societies 
including the United States Society on Dams, NHA, and CEATI. The U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) also submitted comments. The Commission 
has considered all comments in finalizing Chapters 15 through 18 of the 
Engineering Guidelines. The final versions of these chapters are 
available on the FERC Division of Dam Safety and Inspections 
website.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As explained in Chapter 15 of the Engineering Guidelines, 
the Supporting Technical Information Document is a ``living'' 
document that serves as a compendium of existing project 
information, including information about a project's design, 
construction history, operating procedures, and engineering 
analyses.
    \21\ Available at https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/hydropower/dam-safety-and-inspections/eng-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    16. As explained in the NOPR, the Commission evaluated potential 
revisions to its part 12 regulations by considering the findings of the 
Oroville Independent Forensic Team and FERC After Action Panel; 
reviewing the inspection practices of other Federal agencies 
responsible for ensuring the safety of a large number of dams, 
including those of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) \22\ and the 
Corps; \23\ and reviewing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 
(FEMA) Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Reclamation, Review/Examination Program for High and 
Significant Hazard Dams (Sept. 2018), https://www.usbr.gov/recman/fac/fac01-07.pdf.
    \23\ Corps, Safety of Dams--Policy and Procedures (Mar. 2014), 
https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerRegulations/ER_1110-2-1156.pdf.
    \24\ FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety (Apr. 2004), 
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_dam-safety_P-93.pdf (FEMA Dam Safety Guidelines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. In addition to making various minor revisions and updates to 
our part 12 regulations, this final rule accomplishes four overarching 
objectives that are integral to strengthening the Commission's dam 
safety program and addressing shortcomings identified by the forensic 
investigations that followed the Oroville Dam spillway incident. First, 
the final rule implements two tiers of part 12 independent consultant 
safety inspections, in addition to Commission staff's regular 
inspections. The two-tier structure includes two types of inspections: 
a comprehensive assessment and a periodic inspection. Each type of 
inspection will be performed at a 10-year interval, with the periodic 
inspection occurring midway between comprehensive assessments. The two-
tier inspection structure retains the current five-year interval 
between part 12 inspections and mirrors FEMA's recommendation that 
formal inspections be conducted at intervals not to exceed five 
years.\25\ The alternating two-tier structure is similar to those used 
by Reclamation and the Corps. Because the existing five-year interval 
between part 12 inspections remains the same, the revised regulations 
do not increase the likelihood that undiscovered safety issues will 
persist for longer periods of time. The comprehensive assessment 
requires a more in-depth review than the current part 12 inspection, 
formally incorporates the existing Potential Failure Mode Analysis 
process, and requires a semi-quantitative risk analysis, as recommended 
by the Oroville Independent Forensic Team and FERC After Action Panel. 
The periodic inspection is narrower in scope than the current part 12 
inspection and focuses primarily on the performance of project works 
between comprehensive assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Second, the final rule changes the process by which D2SI 
reviews and evaluates the qualifications of independent consultants 
that conduct part 12 inspections. Currently, Sec.  12.34 of the 
Commission's regulations requires the licensee to submit to the 
Director of D2SI for approval a resume describing the independent 
consultant's experience.\26\ FEMA recommends that ``the inspection team 
should be chosen on a site-specific basis considering the nature and 
type of dam . . . [and] should comprise individuals having appropriate 
specialized knowledge in structural, mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, 
and embankment design; geology; concrete materials; and construction 
procedures.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 18 CFR 12.34.
    \27\ FEMA Dam Safety Guidelines at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Accordingly, the process adopted in the final rule requires 
licensees to submit to the Director of D2SI an independent consultant 
team proposal,

[[Page 1493]]

comprising one or more independent consultants and additional 
engineering or scientific personnel, as needed, which must demonstrate 
that the members of that team possess an appropriate level of expertise 
for the specific project under consideration. This change reflects the 
reality that, for many of the projects under the Commission's 
jurisdiction, a single independent consultant will not possess the 
appropriate degree and diversity of technical proficiency necessary to 
evaluate all aspects of the project. The current requirement that an 
independent consultant be a licensed professional engineer with a 
minimum of 10 years' experience in ``dam design and construction and in 
the investigation of the safety of existing dams'' is retained, but 
will apply only to the designated independent consultants, and not to 
other supporting members of the independent consultant team.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 18 CFR 12.31(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Third, the final rule codifies existing guidance related to the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program. Currently, the Commission's part 12 
regulations do not explicitly require a licensee to develop an Owner's 
Dam Safety Program. However, Sec.  12.4 of our existing regulations 
provides that the Commission may require an applicant or licensee to 
submit reports or information on any condition affecting the safety of 
the project.\29\ Since the initial request for an Owner's Dam Safety 
Program in August 2012,\30\ approximately 250 have been developed by 
licensees and submitted to the Commission. This final rule codifies the 
requirement that licensees of one or more high or significant hazard 
potential dams \31\ must prepare, maintain, file with the Commission, 
and periodically review and update an Owner's Dam Safety Program. 
Licensees must designate a person responsible for overseeing day-to-day 
implementation of the dam safety program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 18 CFR 12.4(b)(2)(ii)(B).
    \30\ See supra P 9.
    \31\ See supra note 10 (defining high hazard and significant 
hazard potentials).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Fourth, the final rule modifies licensee reporting and 
preparedness requirements related to public safety at or near 
hydroelectric projects. Currently, licensees are required to install 
and maintain public safety devices and to report deaths or serious 
injuries at their projects.\32\ The final rule revises the definition 
of a ``project-related'' incident to clarify that licensees are 
required to report those public safety incidents that are related to 
project operation; to report rescues in addition to deaths and serious 
injuries; and to prepare, maintain, and submit a public safety plan to 
D2SI, which is the current practice required by existing D2SI guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 18 CFR 12.10(b) (death or serious injury reporting) and 
12.42 (warning and safety devices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. A section-by-section analysis, describing the proposal set 
forth in the NOPR, the comments received on the NOPR, and the 
Commission's determinations, follows.

A. Review, Inspection, and Assessment by Independent Consultants

    23. In response to the findings and recommendations in the Oroville 
Independent Forensic Team Report and FERC After Action Panel Report, 
the Commission is revising its regulations under 18 CFR part 12, 
subpart D, to enhance the program for independent consultant 
inspections. The regulations adopted here will replace existing subpart 
D in its entirety. Due to the final rule's implementation of two tiers 
of part 12 inspections (periodic inspections and comprehensive 
assessments), subpart D will now include Sec. Sec.  12.30 through 
12.42, which results in changes to the numbering of subpart E (existing 
Sec. Sec.  12.40 through 12.44 will become Sec. Sec.  12.50 through 
12.54).
1. Section 12.30--Applicability
    24. Section 12.30 establishes the applicability of subpart D's 
independent consultant inspection requirement and identifies three 
conditions that result in a project being subject to the provisions of 
subpart D. Subpart D currently applies to any project development that 
has a dam: (1) Greater than a specified height; (2) with an impoundment 
exceeding a specific gross storage capacity; or (3) that has a high 
hazard potential and is determined by the Regional Engineer to require 
inspection by an independent consultant. Although the subpart D 
regulations could be interpreted as only applying to dams, D2SI has in 
practice applied the requirements of this subpart to those portions of 
canals and penstocks judged to have a high hazard potential and this 
rule adopts that interpretation.
    25. The NOPR proposed revisions to Sec.  12.30 to align subpart D's 
applicability with existing D2SI practices and to make clear that the 
provisions of subpart D apply to project works other than dams and 
could apply to projects that do not have a dam. Specifically, the 
Commission proposed revisions to Sec.  12.30 to clarify that while the 
existing height and storage thresholds apply only to project 
developments with a dam, the high hazard potential criterion applies to 
all project works (i.e., if any portion of a project work has a high 
hazard potential, the project development would be subject to subpart 
D). Additionally, as revised, subpart D would apply to a project 
development if the Regional Engineer or other Commission representative 
determines that an inspection is required for reasons not listed. For 
example, the Regional Engineer may conclude that an independent 
consultant inspection is warranted for a project that is otherwise not 
subject to subpart D where the dam or other project work poses 
significant safety concerns.
    26. Certain commenters suggested that further distinction should be 
made to distinguish the requirements for low hazard potential works and 
high hazard potential works within a licensed project development that 
is subject to part 12.\33\ NHA also suggested that recreational access 
to project lands should be excluded from the consideration of the 
hazard potential or that the applicability of this revision should be 
narrowed.\34\ CEATI asked for clarity regarding who is considered an 
``other authorized Commission representative'' as that term is used in 
Sec.  12.30(c).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., CEATI's September 9, 2021 Comments at 5 (CEATI 
Comments); NHA's September 22, 2021 Comments at 4 (NHA Comments).
    \34\ See NHA Comments at 4.
    \35\ CEATI Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. All project works function as a system. Even low hazard 
potential project works have the potential to adversely impact high 
hazard potential works; therefore, as has been D2SI's current practice, 
low hazard potential works of projects meeting the applicability 
provisions of Sec.  12.30 must also meet the requirements of subpart D. 
This is not a change from the interpretation of the existing 
regulations, but rather a clarification. Regarding the second comment, 
as is current practice in evaluating downstream hazard potential, high 
usage areas of any type, including recreational areas, should be 
considered in determining hazard potential.\36\ Last, Sec.  12.30(c)'s 
use of the term ``other authorized Commission representative'' is 
consistent with Sec.  12.3(b)(3), which defines ``authorized Commission 
representative'' as the Director of the Office of Energy Projects, the 
Director of D2SI, the Regional Engineer, or any

[[Page 1494]]

other member of the Commission staff whom the Commission may 
specifically designate. Apart from updating cross references within 
part 12 and a minor clarifying edit, no substantive revisions were made 
to this section following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See FEMA Dam Safety Guidelines supra note 24. Consistent 
with FEMA guidance, high usage areas of any type should be 
considered appropriately in evaluating hazard potential and it has 
been D2SI's practice to consider the implications of recreation use 
on hazard potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Section 12.31--Definitions
    28. Current Sec.  12.31 defines ``independent consultant,'' ``high 
hazard potential,'' ``height above streambed,'' and ``gross storage 
capacity'' for the purposes of the provisions of subpart D. Section 
12.31 also provides the D2SI Director the authority to grant a waiver 
from the 10-year experience requirement in the definition of 
independent consultant.
    29. The NOPR proposed revisions to Sec.  12.31 to update the 
definition of an ``independent consultant'' and to add definitions for 
the terms ``independent consultant team,'' ``periodic inspection,'' and 
``comprehensive assessment.''
    30. Our regulations currently define ``independent consultant'' as 
a licensed professional engineer, with at least ten years of experience 
and expertise related to dams, who is not, and has not been within two 
years, an employee of the licensee or its affiliates or an agent acting 
on behalf of the licensee. As proposed in the NOPR, the revised 
definition of ``independent consultant'' would retain the licensure and 
10-year experience requirements. However, the restrictions regarding 
the professional relationship between the independent consultant and 
licensee would be separated into three separate elements, requiring 
that an independent consultant: (1) Is not an employee of the licensee 
or its affiliates; (2) has not been an employee of the licensee or its 
affiliates within two years prior to performing a periodic inspection 
or comprehensive assessment; and (3) has not been an agent acting on 
behalf of the licensee or its affiliates before performing services 
under this part.\37\ The NOPR explained that the Commission intends to 
narrowly apply this restriction, with a primary goal of ensuring that 
independent consultants are not responsible for reviewing work to which 
they contributed substantially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Because the circumstances will vary and require evaluation 
by Commission staff on a case-by-case basis, the definition proposed 
in the NOPR and adopted in this final rule does not attempt to set 
specific thresholds for scope or duration of services. Chapter 16 of 
the guidelines provides examples of the type of information 
Commission staff will consider when making these determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The NOPR also proposed to define ``independent consultant 
team'' as comprising one or more independent consultants and additional 
engineering and scientific personnel, as needed. Collectively, the 
independent consultant team must have expertise commensurate with the 
scale, complexity, and relevant technical disciplines of the project 
and type of review being performed (periodic inspection or 
comprehensive assessment). As the NOPR explained, this approach ensures 
that each inspection and review is conducted by qualified personnel 
such that the Commission can reasonably expect that potential issues 
relating to project safety or stability will be identified. The 
Commission intends to place greater emphasis on the qualifications of 
the personnel on an independent consultant team, and their collective 
experience and expertise, for comprehensive assessments compared to 
periodic inspections; projects with higher consequences or total 
project risk; projects with a greater number of, or more technically 
diverse or challenging, project works; and projects with a history of 
unusual or adverse performance. Currently, Sec.  12.34 requires 
licensees to submit resumes for independent consultants for Commission 
approval. As further discussed below, the final rule revises Sec.  
12.34 to require licensees to submit an independent consultant team 
proposal for the Director of D2SI's approval.
    32. Commenters requested clarification of the definition of an 
independent consultant team and asked that the 10-year experience 
requirement be limited to just the independent consultant and not the 
entire team.\38\ Some commenters expressed general concern about the 
relatively limited pool of qualified independent consultants,\39\ and 
that the provisions on independence might disqualify those who have 
performed prior work on the project.\40\ CEATI recommended that the 
reference to qualified dam design and construction personnel should be 
broadened to include other critical project works such as penstocks, 
gates, and other structures.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 4; CEATI Comments at 6; Central 
Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District's September 22, 2020 
Comments at 1-2 (Central Nebraska Comments).
    \39\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 4; CEATI Comments at 6; Central 
Nebraska Comments at 1-2; Wisconsin Power and Light Company's 
September 18, 2020 Comments at 5-7 (Wisconsin Power Comments).
    \40\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 4; CEATI Comments at 6; 
Wisconsin Power Comments at 6.
    \41\ See CEATI Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Based on the comments received, we revised the definition of 
independent consultant team to clarify that the ten-year experience 
requirement applies only to the independent consultant and does not 
apply to the additional independent consultant team members. The final 
rule requires that an independent consultant team must include at least 
one independent consultant, as defined in paragraph (a) of this 
section, and that supporting team members must meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) of this section regarding the 
professional relationship between the team member and the licensee. In 
addition, former paragraph (i) regarding the granting of a waiver of 
the 10-year requirement was relocated to Sec.  12.34 for clarity.
    34. In response to the general concerns about the limited pool of 
qualified independent consultants or team members, the restrictions 
listed in paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) are designed to ensure that 
independent consultants and team members are not responsible for 
reviewing work to which they substantially contributed. This limiting 
provision is essential in ensuring independence of the independent 
consultant and independent consultant teams.\42\ Examples of what 
constitutes independence is provided in Chapter 16 of the Engineering 
Guidelines.\43\ This provision clarifies previous guidance and practice 
and in staff's opinion will not reduce the pool of independent 
consultants performing this work. On the contrary, the inclusion of 
independent consultant team members provides more opportunity to 
develop the experience of more junior professionals to be qualified as 
future independent consultants. ``Appurtenances'' has been added to the 
required expertise of the independent

[[Page 1495]]

consultant team to broaden the experience of the team beyond that of 
just the dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ CEATI asks whether a licensee may appeal a determination 
under Sec.  12.31(a)(5) of a possible conflict of interest based on 
an independent consultant's prior work on a project. CEATI Comments 
at 6. As explained in Chapter 16 of the Engineering Guidelines, if 
there is a situation that could disqualify an independent consultant 
or team member under Sec.  12.31(a)(5), it is the licensee's 
responsibility to demonstrate in the inspection plan that any 
potential conflict of interest will be avoided. In any event, any 
staff action is subject to a request for rehearing, see 18 CFR 
385.1902(a), although it is unclear to what extent we would 
entertain such an interlocutory matter.
    \43\ With respect to the limitation in Sec.  12.31(a)(5) that an 
independent consultant has not been ``an agent acting on behalf of 
the licensee or its affiliates,'' we do not find it necessary to 
define the term ``agent'' as some commenters suggest. See NHA 
Comments at 5; CEATI Comments at 6. The term agent is commonly used 
to refer to a person with authority to act on another's behalf. As 
we have explained, the purpose of the limitation is to ensure the 
independent consultant's independence. Chapter 16 of the Engineering 
Guidelines provides example scenarios and guidance to help licensees 
navigate the independent consultant approval process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. The NOPR proposed and the final rule updates the definition of 
``hazard potential'' to ensure consistency with FEMA's Hazard Potential 
Classification System for Dams,\44\ and relocates the definition of 
``high hazard potential'' to Sec.  12.3(b)(13)(i).\45\ The updated 
definition applies to dams, canals, and other water conveyances, or any 
portion thereof. The final rule further defines ``significant hazard 
potential'' and ``low hazard potential classifications'' in Sec. Sec.  
12.3(b)(ii) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard 
Potential Classification System for Dams (Apr. 2004), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/fema-333.pdf (FEMA Hazard 
Potential Classification System).
    \45\ See infra P 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The NOPR also proposed and the final rule in Sec.  12.31 
includes definitions for ``periodic inspection'' and ``comprehensive 
assessment.'' No further revisions were made to this section following 
the NOPR.
3. Section 12.32--General Inspection Requirement
    37. Existing Sec.  12.32 requires that an independent consultant 
perform a periodic inspection of the project works of each 
development,\46\ subject to the provisions of subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Development means that part of a project comprising an 
impoundment and its associated dams, forebays, water conveyance 
facilities, power plants, and other appurtenant facilities. A 
project may comprise one or more developments. 18 CFR 12.3(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. The NOPR proposed to retain the general requirement that an 
independent consultant inspection be performed, to revise Sec.  12.32 
to incorporate the terms ``periodic inspection'' and ``comprehensive 
assessment,'' and to require the filing of a report following each type 
of inspection. The NOPR also proposed to relocate the general 
requirement to file an inspection report from existing Sec.  12.37 to 
revised Sec.  12.32.
    39. Commenters requested that ``generating equipment'' be added to 
the list of project works excluded from inspections and further clarity 
be provided to distinguish between the inspection requirements for high 
hazard potential and low hazard potential project works.\47\ Generating 
equipment is a critical element in the passage and discharge of water 
through a powerhouse. Because the failure of generating equipment to 
pass discharge can result in operational and life safety concerns, it 
is imperative that generating equipment be inspected for mechanical 
reliability and operational concerns. Therefore, we decline to revise 
Sec.  12.32 to add generating equipment to the list of project works 
excluded from inspections. The subject of inspection requirements for 
high and low hazard potential project works is discussed in Sec.  12.30 
above. No revisions to the section were made based on this comment. The 
final rule eliminates two general references to the Engineering 
Guidelines from this section and adds a sentence to clarify that the 
licensee must ensure that the independent consultant team's report 
complies with all the requirements set forth in subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See NHA Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Section 12.33--Exemption
    40. Existing Sec.  12.33 grants the Director of D2SI the authority 
to exempt projects from the provisions of subpart D for good cause and 
provides an example of what may constitute good cause. At the Director 
of D2SI's discretion, the exemption may be granted in perpetuity or may 
require periodic reevaluation of the exemption justification (e.g., by 
reviewing and confirming that the project has a low hazard potential).
    41. The NOPR, which in Sec.  12.33(a) retained the Director of 
D2SI's authority to exempt projects from subpart D, proposed revisions 
to Sec.  12.33(b) to update the example of good cause to include canals 
and other water conveyances. In addition, the NOPR proposed in Sec.  
12.33(c) to rescind any exemption from subpart D that was issued prior 
to the effective date of this rule. Existing subpart D exemptions have 
been granted over several decades and, as the state of the practice of 
dam safety has evolved, have not been reconsidered consistently. For 
this reason, the NOPR contemplated that an entity desiring a continued 
exemption would be required to reapply to ensure that any justification 
for a subpart D exemption is reviewed based on the current state of the 
practice, considering potential failure modes, consequences, and total 
project risk.
    42. NHA requested that the Commission reconsider rescinding all 
previously approved exemptions from the requirements of subpart D.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ NHA Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Based on the comments received and after further consideration, 
the blanket rescission of all previously approved exemptions has been 
removed from the regulations. Instead, we have revised Sec.  12.33 to 
clarify that the Director of D2SI, for good cause shown, may rescind a 
previously approved exemption from the requirements of subpart D. This 
determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. In addition, for 
future exemption requests, the Director of D2SI may require the 
licensee to complete a comprehensive assessment prior to considering 
the exemption request.
5. Section 12.34--Approval of Independent Consultant Team
    44. Prior to performing an inspection, existing Sec.  12.34 
requires a licensee to submit for the Director of the Office of Energy 
Projects' approval a detailed resume for an independent consultant. In 
the NOPR, the Commission proposed several revisions to Sec.  12.34 to 
address concerns raised in the Oroville Independent Forensic Team 
report, the FERC After Action Panel Report, and issues related to 
implementation of the existing rule over the past several years.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In particular, the improvements to the independent 
consultant team approval process include: broadening the composition 
of independent consultant team members to include representation 
from varied technical disciplines; ensuring thorough review of 
project works by qualified individuals with the appropriate 
technical disciplines; and performing comprehensive reviews of the 
original project design, construction, and subsequent performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. In Sec.  12.34(a), the NOPR proposed to require licensees to 
obtain written approval of the independent consultant team, from the 
Director of D2SI instead of the Director of the Office of Energy 
Projects, prior to performing a periodic inspection or comprehensive 
assessment. While in practice D2SI has granted approval of independent 
consultants prior to inspections, the regulation as currently written 
does not stipulate that D2SI approval must be obtained.
    46. As proposed in the NOPR, Sec.  12.34(b) would require licensees 
to submit a detailed independent consultant team proposal to the 
Director of D2SI at least 180 days prior to performing a periodic 
inspection or comprehensive assessment. This involves two primary 
changes. As we explained in the NOPR, while the current text of Sec.  
12.34(b) requires licensees to submit an independent consultant's 
detailed resume 60 days in advance, increasing the submittal time to 
180 days in advance does not represent a change in practice. D2SI staff 
routinely issues reminder letters to licensees approximately 18 months 
in advance of any inspection required under subpart D, and for several 
years has requested that independent consultants' resumes be submitted 
six months in advance to ensure that all parties are aware of their 
roles and responsibilities, and have sufficient time to prepare for the 
inspection. The

[[Page 1496]]

final rule codifies D2SI's current practice.
    47. Second, existing Sec.  12.34 requires that resumes be submitted 
only for any independent consultant, to demonstrate that they meet the 
requirements provided in Sec.  12.31. In the NOPR, we proposed 
revisions to Sec.  12.34(b) directing licensees to submit documentation 
of the experience and qualifications for all members of the independent 
consultant team, including one or more independent consultants and 
additional contributing members, as needed. This change will allow 
Commission staff to more fully evaluate the independent consultant 
team's experience and ensure it is commensurate to the scale, 
complexity, and technical disciplines of the project and type of review 
being performed. The Commission intends to require a higher level of 
experience and expertise for a comprehensive assessment than a periodic 
inspection, due to the broader scope of the comprehensive assessment.
    48. The NOPR proposed changes to Sec.  12.34(c) that would permit 
the Director of D2SI to disapprove of an independent consultant team 
member, regardless of demonstrated experience and qualifications, for 
good cause, such as having a report rejected by the Commission within 
the preceding five years. This provision allows the Commission to 
ensure that independent consultants' inspections are performed by 
qualified parties.
    49. In response to the NOPR, commenters requested further clarity 
on: (1) The independent consultant team proposal information that 
should be provided in the inspection plan; (2) grounds for disapproval 
of an independent consultant; and (3) the timing for submitting the 
inspection plan.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 7; CEATI Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Based on comments received, the final rule further revises 
Sec.  12.34 to:

     Clarify that the independent consultant team proposal 
must identify the technical disciplines and level of expertise 
required to perform the inspection and show that each member of the 
independent consultant team who is not designated as an independent 
consultant meets the requirements of Sec.  12.31(a)(3) through (5);
     clarify that the D2SI Director may disapprove an 
individual who is identified as the independent consultant in the 
independent consultant team proposal, and that grounds for 
disapproval may include rejection by the Commission of one or more 
reports on an inspection under this subpart within the preceding 
five years;
     clarify that the 180-day timing is measured from the 
scheduled date of the field inspection or other designated activity 
such as a Potential Failure Mode Analysis or risk analysis;
     add a requirement that the independent consultant team 
proposal clearly delineate team members' roles and responsibilities 
to ensure no team member will be responsible for reviewing and 
evaluating their own previous work on the project;
     add a requirement that if required information about 
any supporting team member is not available at the time of the 
independent consultant team proposal, the missing information must 
be included in the preliminary report required by Sec.  12.42;
     clarify that written approval of the facilitator(s) of 
the Potential Failure Mode Analysis or risk analysis must also be 
obtained; and
     relocate information on granting of a waiver of the 10-
year requirement from Sec.  12.32 to Sec.  12.34 for clarity.
6. Section 12.35--Periodic Inspection
    51. Existing Sec.  12.35 establishes the scope of the independent 
consultant's inspection. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise 
Sec.  12.35 in its entirety such that it establishes the scope of a 
periodic inspection, the less intensive of the two tiers of part 12 
inspections.
    52. The final rule adopts this change. As revised, Sec.  12.35 
establishes the scope of a periodic inspection, which includes review 
of prior reports, a field inspection, review of the surveillance and 
monitoring plan and data, and review of dam and public safety programs. 
A periodic inspection has a reduced scope compared to the existing 
independent consultant's inspection.
    53. In response to the NOPR, commenters recommended: broadening the 
scope of the periodic inspection to include a review of the Supporting 
Technical Information Document; \51\ adding a review of security 
protocols of the operating system to the inspection; \52\ eliminating 
the requirement that the independent consultant team must have a full 
understanding of all the project works; \53\ and deleting the 
requirement for the team to inspect all accessible project works with 
no consideration for the risk/hazard potential of the project work.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See NHA Comments at 7.
    \52\ See CEATI Comments at 10.
    \53\ See id.
    \54\ See NHA Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Adding a review of the Supporting Technical Information 
Document would provide little benefit to the periodic inspection and 
would result in increased burden and cost. Adding a review of the 
security protocols is outside the scope of a periodic inspection and 
would be best handled separately by others with specialized experience. 
For these reasons, neither recommendation was incorporated into the 
scope of a periodic inspection.
    55. Eliminating the requirement for the independent consultant team 
to have a full understanding of the project works would negate the 
team's ability to adequately understand the technical and operational 
aspects of the project and therefore be unable to provide meaningful 
observations, conclusions, and recommendations from the inspection. 
Limiting the inspection to only those project works that are considered 
high risk or high hazard would be subjective, could overlook project 
works whose potential hazard or risk could change over time, and would 
result in an incomplete inspection and assessment of the project works. 
The final rule adds a sentence to Sec.  12.35(a) to clarify that it is 
the licensee's responsibility to provide to the independent consultant 
team all information and reports necessary to fulfill the requirements 
of this section. In addition, a few minor revisions for clarity were 
made to this proposed section following the NOPR.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Section 12.35(a), which requires the independent consultant 
team to review prior reports ``to have, at the time of the periodic 
inspection, a full understanding of the . . . downstream hazard . . 
. of the project works'' was revised to add ``upstream and 
downstream hazard.'' Section 12.35(d)(3), addressing review of dam 
and public safety programs, was revised to specify review of 
``public access restrictions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Section 12.36--Report on Periodic Inspection
    56. Existing Sec.  12.36 deals with emergency corrective measures. 
As discussed further below,\56\ the NOPR proposed to combine the 
requirements for emergency corrective measures contained in existing 
Sec.  12.36 and the requirements for corrective measures after the 
report as outlined in existing Sec.  12.39 under a single ``corrective 
measures'' heading in Sec.  12.41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See infra PP 93-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. As proposed in the NOPR, new Sec.  12.36 establishes the 
requirements for the periodic inspection report, which serves a similar 
purpose to existing Sec.  12.37 (report of the independent consultant) 
with several notable changes. Existing Sec.  12.37(b) currently 
requires initial reports filed under subpart D to include general 
project information (e.g., project descriptions, maps, design summary 
information, geologic information) and allows licensees to incorporate 
by reference existing information and analyses contained in previously-
prepared independent consultant reports (existing Sec.  12.37(b)(2)). 
The final rule eliminates

[[Page 1497]]

the practice of differentiating between initial and subsequent reports 
and will require every periodic inspection report to meet the same 
standard, without relying on the practice of incorporating by reference 
information or analyses contained in earlier reports.
    58. Section 12.36(b) of the final rule lists specific evaluations 
that must be documented in a periodic inspection report. These pertain 
to the surveillance, monitoring, and performance of the project, with a 
focus on whether any potential failure modes, previously identified or 
not, are active, developing, or warrant further evaluation at the time 
of the periodic inspection.
    59. As proposed in the NOPR, the final rule eliminates the 
provisions that previously allowed independent consultants to 
incorporate the previous independent consultant's report by reference 
and document only information that has changed since the previous 
report. Section 12.36(c) provides a list of items which require a 
status update and an evaluation of any changes since the previous 
inspection.
    60. Existing provisions in Sec. Sec.  12.37(c)(4) through (8) are 
retained in Sec. Sec.  12.36(d) through (h) with minor changes to 
ensure consistency with other revisions.
    61. In response to the NOPR, commenters sought clarity on the 
independent consultant team's review and assessment of previous 
engineering analyses and reports.\57\ Specifically, commenters 
questioned whether independent consultants may, after reviewing 
previous reports, conclude that they concur with the analyses and 
results and that the content of the previous reports need not be 
recreated. In addition, certain commenters, such as CEATI and Central 
Nebraska, advocated for the removal of paragraph (b)(5)(iii), which 
would require the independent consultant team to review the adequacy of 
the Owner's Dam Safety Program.\58\ Central Nebraska and NHA reiterated 
similar concerns with respect to the independent consultant team's 
review of the Public Safety Plan, noting that the review should be 
limited to the licensee's compliance with the plan rather than a review 
of the plan's adequacy.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See, e.g., CEATI Comments at 10; Central Nebraska Comments 
at 2.
    \58\ See CEATI Comments at 11; Central Nebraska Comments at 2; 
see also NHA Comments at 7 (expressing concern that the scope of the 
periodic inspection includes review of the Owner's Dam Safety Plan 
and Public Safety Plan).
    \59\ See Central Nebraska Comments at 2; NHA Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. In reviewing and assessing previous engineering analyses and 
reports, the independent consultant team's summary must not simply 
state that the team agrees with the report findings, but instead must 
provide a clear rationale or basis for why the team agrees with the 
report findings. The independent consultant team's review of the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program, a required component of the periodic 
inspection (as well as the comprehensive assessment) is not the same as 
the external audit of the Owner's Dam Safety Program described in Sec.  
12.65.\60\ For the purposes of the periodic inspection or comprehensive 
assessment, the Owner's Dam Safety Program review is intended to 
provide the independent consultant team an opportunity to provide their 
observations and findings from their interactions with the licensee 
staff (e.g., managers, dam safety engineers, and operators) related to 
the licensee's implementation of and compliance with its Owner's Dam 
Safety Program at the particular project being inspected.\61\ The same 
is true of the independent consultant team's review of the Public 
Safety Plan. The final rule revises this section to specify that the 
report must be sealed with a professional engineer's seal (Sec.  
12.36(h)), to delete informational references to the Engineering 
Guidelines, and to incorporate other minor edits. No other substantive 
revisions were made to this proposed section following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The purpose of the external audit or peer review is to 
provide a holistic review of the Owner's Dam Safety Program by 
evaluating its efficacy across the owner's portfolio of projects to 
which the program applies. This review is to be conducted every five 
years and should focus on the owner's corporate program for dam 
safety, including, but not limited to, communication, training, and 
organizational structure and risk reduction strategies intended to 
foster a strong dam safety culture within the owner's organization 
as a whole.
    \61\ NHA suggests that requiring review of the Owner's Dam 
Safety Program as part of the periodic inspection ``could create 
significant exposure to liability for an [independent consultant] 
who is highly qualified with respect to the technical and 
operational aspects of the project, but not with respect to 
evaluating organizational programs and effectiveness.'' NHA Comments 
at 7. However, in Commission staff's experience this has not been an 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Section 12.37--Comprehensive Assessment
    63. Existing Sec.  12.37 establishes requirements for independent 
consultant-prepared reports. As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, 
the revisions to Sec. Sec.  12.36 and 12.38 incorporate this 
information for reports on periodic inspections and comprehensive 
assessments, respectively.
    64. Section 12.37 of the final rule establishes the scope of a 
comprehensive assessment, the more intensive of the two tiers of part 
12 inspection. As many components of the comprehensive assessment are 
identical to or build upon the periodic inspection, several paragraphs 
of this section cross-reference the corresponding periodic inspection 
requirements in Sec.  12.35.
    65. In addition to those elements required for a periodic 
inspection set forth in Sec.  12.35, a comprehensive assessment must 
include a review of prior reports and analyses of record, a review of 
the Supporting Technical Information Document, a Potential Failure Mode 
Analysis, and a risk analysis. A comprehensive assessment has an 
expanded scope compared to the existing independent consultant's 
inspection. Section 12.37(a)(2) requires the independent consultant 
team to perform a more detailed review of existing documentation, 
including as-built drawings, monitoring data, and analyses of record, 
than required by the current independent consultant's inspection.
    66. Section 12.37(f) requires a comprehensive assessment to include 
a Potential Failure Mode Analysis, which is already standard practice 
for part 12 inspections. D2SI has developed draft Chapter 17 of the 
Engineering Guidelines, which describes how to conduct a Potential 
Failure Mode Analysis. As discussed above, the Commission has solicited 
and received public comments on draft Chapter 17 in Docket No. AD20-22-
00.\62\ The final version of Chapter 17 is available on the FERC 
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections website.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See supra P 15.
    \63\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. Section 12.37(g) incorporates a semi-quantitative risk analysis 
as part of the scope of a comprehensive assessment. Other Federal 
agencies, including Reclamation, the Corps, and the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, have incorporated this type of analysis into their 
systematic comprehensive dam safety reviews. FEMA also provides 
recommendations and guidance for the performance of semi-quantitative 
risk analysis.\64\ D2SI developed draft Chapter 18 of the Engineering 
Guidelines to provide guidance describing the process of, and 
procedures for performing, a semi-quantitative risk analysis. As 
discussed above, the Commission has solicited

[[Page 1498]]

and received public comments on draft Chapter 18 in Docket No. AD20-23-
00.\65\ The final version of Chapter 18 is available on the FERC 
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections website.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ FEMA, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety Risk Management 
(Jan. 2015), https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_dam-safety_risk-management_P-1025.pdf.
    \65\ See supra P 15.
    \66\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. Section 12.37(g) permits the Regional Engineer to waive the 
requirement that a comprehensive assessment must include performance of 
a risk analysis. This waiver provision allows the Commission to focus 
its efforts on projects that present greater risk to life, health, and 
property, and provides flexibility for D2SI staff to gradually phase in 
the risk analysis component of a comprehensive assessment, allowing 
sufficient time for D2SI staff to develop and deliver training on the 
risk analysis procedures to D2SI staff, licensees, and consultants. It 
also can provide regulatory relief to licensees, where appropriate.
    69. In response to the NOPR, commenters requested clarity on 
performing a Potential Failure Mode Analysis,\67\ questioned the 
appropriateness of requiring a risk analysis as part of a comprehensive 
assessment for owners with a small number of dams,\68\ and commented on 
the scope and cost to perform a risk analysis.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 10; CEATI Comments at 11.
    \68\ See CEATI Comments at 11.
    \69\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 10; CEATI Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. As more fully described in the Engineering Guidelines, the 
Potential Failure Mode Analysis is a process used to identify, 
describe, and evaluate the credibility and significance of potential 
failure modes.\70\ A Potential Failure Mode Analysis is the first step 
in conducting a risk analysis, which evaluates significance from a risk 
perspective by categorizing potential failure modes by likelihood and 
consequence in an effort to prioritize dam safety activities. Chapters 
17 and 18 of the Engineering Guidelines provide procedural guidance for 
performing a Potential Failure Mode Analysis and a risk analysis for a 
comprehensive assessment, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Chapter 17 of the Engineering Guidelines explains that a 
potential failure mode is a way that failure could occur and defines 
failure, for the purposes of the potential failure mode analysis, as 
an uncontrolled release of the reservoir, in whole or in part; the 
inability of project works or components to perform their intended 
function; or project works or components performing in an impaired 
or compromised fashion; any of which results in an adverse 
consequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. As to concerns about requiring a risk analysis as part of a 
comprehensive assessment for owners with a small portfolio of dams, 
risk is not a function of the number of dams an entity owns. Moreover, 
the scope of the risk analysis has been designed so that it may be 
tailored to specific project conditions. The guidance in Chapter 18 of 
the Engineering Guidelines provides for a scalable approach to 
performing the risk analysis depending on the type, complexity, and 
size of the project works. Larger and more complex project works will 
generally take more effort to analyze than projects with smaller and 
less complex works. The appropriate scope of a risk analysis, as well 
as associated costs for performing such analysis, have been carefully 
considered to provide only that level of effort needed to obtain the 
information necessary to prioritize risk measures. The final rule adds 
a sentence to Sec.  12.37(a) to clarify that it is the licensee's 
responsibility to provide to the independent consultant team all 
information, reports, and analyses of record necessary to fulfill the 
requirements of this section and deletes informational references to 
the Engineering Guidelines. No other substantive revisions were made to 
proposed Sec.  12.37 following the NOPR.
9. Section 12.38--Report on Comprehensive Assessment
    72. Existing Sec.  12.38 describes the timeline for submitting 
reports on an independent consultant's inspection. These requirements 
are relocated to Sec.  12.40, discussed below.
    73. As proposed in the NOPR, Sec.  12.38 of the final rule 
establishes the requirements for the report on a comprehensive 
assessment. As with the corresponding section regarding a report on a 
periodic inspection, the Commission is eliminating the difference 
between initial and subsequent reports and will require every 
comprehensive assessment report to meet the same standard.
    74. Section 12.38(b) references Sec.  12.36(b) and identifies 
additional items that require specific evaluation in the comprehensive 
assessment report. In addition to those elements required for a 
periodic inspection, a comprehensive assessment report must include an 
evaluation of: Spillway adequacy; the potential for internal erosion 
and/or piping of embankments, foundations, and abutments; structural 
integrity and stability of all structures under credible loading 
conditions; any other analyses of record pertaining to geology, 
seismicity, hydrology, hydraulics, or project safety; and the 
Supporting Technical Information Document, Potential Failure Mode 
Analysis, and risk analysis. An evaluation of an analysis of record 
must include an evaluation of the accuracy, relevance, and consistency 
with the current state of the practice of dam engineering, and the 
comprehensive assessment report must include clear documentation of the 
independent consultant team's rationale. If the independent consultant 
team is unable to review any analysis of record or disagrees with the 
analysis of record in any way, the independent consultant must 
recommend new analyses.
    75. In the NOPR, the Commission also proposed to eliminate 
provisions that allow independent consultants to incorporate the 
previous independent consultant's report by reference and document only 
that information that has changed since the previous report. By 
referencing the periodic inspection report requirements (Sec.  
12.36(c)) (i.e., report on periodic inspection), Sec.  12.38(c) 
requires the independent consultant to provide, across seven 
categories, a status update and evaluation of any changes since the 
previous inspection.
    76. The existing provisions in Sec. Sec.  12.37(c)(4) through (8) 
are retained in Sec. Sec.  12.38(d) through (h) of the final rule with 
minor changes to ensure consistency with other revisions adopted 
herein.
    77. In response to the NOPR, commenters requested clarity on 
appropriate actions to take when the analyses of record are 
unavailable.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 10; CEATI Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Section 12.38(c)(3) requires the independent consultant to 
provide recommendations to perform new analyses if the analyses of 
record are not available to be reviewed. It is incumbent on licensees 
to either locate the analysis of record or provide a plan and schedule 
to complete a new analysis. Additional guidance on reviewing and 
evaluating the analyses of record and how that information should be 
documented and classified is provided in Chapter 16 of the Engineering 
Guidelines. As discussed above, the Commission has solicited and 
received public comments on draft Chapter 16 in Docket No. AD20-21-
00.\72\ The final version of Chapter 16 is available on the FERC 
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections website.\73\ Apart from 
eliminating informational references to the Engineering Guidelines, no 
substantive revisions were made to proposed Sec.  12.38 following the 
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See supra P 15.
    \73\ See supra note 21.

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

[[Page 1499]]

10. Section 12.39--Evaluation of Spillway Adequacy
    79. Existing Sec.  12.39 describes the process for taking 
corrective measures after the independent consultant's report is filed 
with the Regional Engineer. As proposed in the NOPR, this procedure is 
relocated to Sec.  12.41, discussed below. The requirement to evaluate 
spillway adequacy is an existing component of the part 12 inspection 
and is currently found in Sec.  12.35(b) of our regulations. However, 
providing this information in a standalone section will highlight the 
importance of evaluating spillway adequacy. Accordingly, the final rule 
relocates the requirement to evaluate spillway adequacy to Sec.  12.39.
    80. As proposed in the NOPR, Sec.  12.39 of the final rule would 
expand the existing requirements for evaluating spillway adequacy to 
address scenarios similar to the 2017 Oroville Dam spillway incident. 
When assessing spillway adequacy, independent consultants must evaluate 
the potential for misoperation of, failure to operate, blockage of, or 
debilitating damage to, a spillway, and the resulting effects on the 
maximum reservoir level and the potential for overtopping.
    81. In response to the NOPR, NHA requested clarity on how the 
hydraulic adequacy evaluations will be consistently implemented and 
whether the credible loading conditions are standards based or risk 
based.\74\ Central Nebraska expressed concerns that Sec.  12.39 could 
result in ``efforts that could be overly broad and lead[] to the review 
or assumption of unreasonable levels of unlikelihood,'' and suggested 
instead that spillway performance be evaluated through the Potential 
Failure Mode Analysis process.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See NHA Comments at 10-11.
    \75\ Central Nebraska Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. The evaluation of spillway adequacy has been a longstanding 
assessment requirement of subpart D independent consultant inspections. 
The final rule requires the independent consultant as part of the 
spillway adequacy assessment to consider specific conditions that could 
limit or impact spillway discharge. Commission staff will monitor and 
review how these conditions are assessed and provide additional 
guidance on the assessment process, if needed, on a case-by-case basis. 
In response to NHA's question about appropriate flood loading 
conditions, paragraph (a) has been revised to clarify that floods up to 
and including the probable maximum flood must be considered in the 
evaluation. In addition, we have deleted the word ``structural'' from 
paragraphs (a) and (b) to clarify that failures could be more than 
structural failures and eliminated from this section an informational 
reference to the Engineering Guidelines.
11. Section 12.40--Time for Inspections and Reports
    83. This final rule relocates the provisions regarding timelines 
for performing independent consultant inspections and submitting 
inspection reports, previously found in Sec.  12.38, to revised Sec.  
12.40. Our existing rules maintain a five-year cycle for inspections 
and include provisions for initial inspections of existing licensed 
projects, projects licensed but not yet constructed, and all other 
projects; include a separate set of provisions related to projects 
inspected by an independent consultant prior to March 1, 1981; and 
authorize the Regional Engineer to grant extensions of time to file an 
independent consultant's inspection report.
    84. Section 12.40 revises the timeline for submitting reports on 
inspections by independent consultants. While the current five-year 
interval between inspections and reports is maintained, the inspections 
will alternate between periodic inspections and comprehensive 
assessments; thus, there is a ten-year interval between any pair of 
consecutive comprehensive assessments or periodic inspections, but a 
significant project review every five years.
    85. Section 12.40(a) consolidates the timing of inspections and 
reports for projects previously inspected by an independent consultant. 
Section 12.40(a)(1) maintains the five-year cycle for an independent 
consultant's inspection of each project development. Section 
12.40(a)(2) grants the Regional Engineer the authority to require that 
any report due 18 months after the effective date of the final rule be 
either a comprehensive assessment or periodic inspection, enabling D2SI 
to balance the number of comprehensive assessments due each year over 
the 10-year cycle. Section 12.40(a)(3) requires that the first 
comprehensive assessment be completed, and the report on it filed, by 
December 31, 2038.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ This date is based on an anticipated final rule effective 
date in early 2022 with a corresponding first report due 18 months 
later in late 2023. A four-year phased implementation period (2024 
through 2027) is assumed to attain full annual implementation. Full 
implementation should be complete after a full 10-year cycle (2027-
2036). An additional two years (2037 and 2038) are provided for 
possible extension of time requests and any other reports that may 
have been delayed from the phased implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    86. Section 12.40(b) retains and updates the terminology related to 
existing provisions for existing licensed projects previously 
inspected, projects licensed but not yet constructed, and other 
projects.
    87. Section 12.40(c) establishes the ten-year interval between 
comprehensive assessments and requires that a periodic inspection be 
performed within five years following a comprehensive assessment.
    88. Sections 12.40(d) and 12.40(e) allow the Regional Engineer to 
extend the time to file an independent consultant's report, for good 
cause shown, and to require that any inspection scheduled to be 
performed be a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment. For 
example, where a project is scheduled for a periodic inspection but a 
dam safety incident, extreme loading condition (e.g., unprecedented 
flood, large earthquake, etc.), or other significant change in 
condition has occurred since the previous comprehensive assessment, the 
Regional Engineer may require that the project undergo a comprehensive 
assessment rather than a periodic inspection. Alternatively, for 
projects that have no life safety consequences and a low total project 
risk, the Regional Engineer may allow comprehensive assessments to be 
performed at an interval greater than every 10 years.
    89. In response to the NOPR, commenters recommend changing the 
effective date to 18 months following the date of the final rule,\77\ 
extending the due date for projects not previously inspected under Part 
12 from two years to three years,\78\ limiting the Regional Engineer's 
ability to unilaterally change the type of report to be filed,\79\ and 
further clarifying the purpose of the preliminary report.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See CEATI Comments at 13.
    \78\ See id.
    \79\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 11; CEATI Comments at 13.
    \80\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 11; CEATI Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. Section 12.40(a)(2) has been revised to reflect that the date 
for a report to be filed under this subpart will be 18 months after the 
effective date of the final rule. Commission staff has evaluated the 
scope of the effort required to complete a comprehensive assessment and 
is confident that two years is sufficient time to complete this work 
and file a report. Extending this work effort over a three-year 
duration would provide no benefits and could negatively impact the 
process by extending the time between the review

[[Page 1500]]

of project information; conducting the inspections and performing 
Potential Failure Mode Analysis and semi-quantitative risk analysis 
meetings; and preparing the report, thus prolonging the period before 
corrective action could be identified and implemented. Section 12.40(e) 
was revised to include ``for good cause'' for the Regional Engineer to 
change the type of report due.
    91. The purpose of the preliminary report is to demonstrate whether 
the independent consultant team has adequately prepared for their 
inspection, including the review of background material and 
instrumentation data. This requirement is intended to help the 
independent consultant team identify areas in the field that may 
require additional attention or effort.
    92. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to include information 
about the preliminary report in Sec.  12.40(f). However, because that 
section covers different material, the final rule relocates the 
preliminary report requirement to Sec.  12.42, which is a new, 
standalone section.
12. Section 12.41--Corrective Measures
    93. The procedures for addressing items identified during a part 12 
inspection that require corrective measures are currently set forth in 
Sec.  12.39. This final rule relocates these corrective measure 
procedures to new Sec.  12.41. Currently, licensees are required to 
submit to the Regional Engineer a plan and schedule within 60 days of 
filing an independent consultant's report with the Commission, and to 
complete all corrective measures in accordance with the plan and 
schedule as approved or modified by the Regional Engineer. Under the 
existing regulations, the Regional Engineer may extend the time for 
filing the plan and schedule. The final rule does not modify or 
eliminate these requirements.
    94. Section 12.41 of the final rule incorporates the requirements 
of existing Sec.  12.36 (emergency corrective measures) and Sec.  12.39 
(post-inspection corrective measures) into a single section titled 
``corrective measures.'' The revisions in Sec.  12.41(a)(1)(i) clarify 
that the licensee's plan and schedule must address the recommendations 
of the independent consultant and include investigation as an option 
for the licensee to implement. Section 12.41(b)(2) is added to ensure 
that emergency corrective measures are documented in the corrective 
plan and schedule required by Sec.  12.41(a)(1).
    95. In response to the NOPR, CEATI recommends limiting the 
corrective plan to only those items that relate to a potential failure 
mode or will improve or change the understanding of risk associated 
with the project works.\81\ Commenters further recommend eliminating 
the requirement to submit an annual status report,\82\ and creating an 
appeals board to offer technical guidance to the Part 12 process.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See CEATI Comments at 14.
    \82\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 12; CEATI Comments at 14.
    \83\ See NHA Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. Section 12.41(a)(1)(ii) already includes provisions for taking 
no action for recommended corrective measures in those cases where it 
is justifiable. The annual status report provides an opportunity to 
periodically review and update the status (e.g., completed, in 
progress, outstanding, etc.) of previously-identified corrective 
measures and provides an opportunity to revisit the priority and status 
of the measures to ensure that they are acted upon. We do not consider 
an annual status update to be too frequent. Commission staff has access 
to other resources for technical advice and review and therefore there 
is no need to create a separate appeals board or board of consultants. 
Based on a comment received from CEATI on Chapter 16 of the Engineering 
Guidelines,\84\ Sec.  12.41(b) was revised to reference Sec.  
12.3(b)(4) of this part, which defines a condition affecting the safety 
of a project or project works, to demonstrate conditions that would be 
considered appropriate for the reporting of an emergency corrective 
measure. In addition, the final rule revises the first sentence of 
Sec.  12.41(b) to emphasize that it is the licensee's responsibility to 
ensure that the independent consultant complies with the notification 
requirements of this paragraph. No other substantive revisions were 
made to proposed Sec.  12.41 following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See CEATI's September 15, 2020 Comments on Chapter 16 of 
the Engineering Guidelines at 28 (filed in Docket No. AD20-21-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Section 12.42--Preliminary Reports
    97. As discussed above, the final rule relocates requirements 
regarding preliminary reports that the NOPR had proposed for inclusion 
in Sec.  12.40(f) to a new section of subpart D, Sec.  12.42.\85\ This 
section requires the independent consultant team, at least 30 days 
before performing a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment, to 
prepare and file a preliminary report. The purpose of the preliminary 
report is two-fold: (1) It documents the independent consultant team's 
initial findings after reviewing the project information; and (2) it 
demonstrates the team's preparation for conducting the site inspection. 
If the preliminary report does not clearly demonstrate that the 
independent consultant team is adequately prepared for the inspection, 
the Regional Engineer may require the inspection be postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See supra P 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Alaska-Specific Concerns
    98. A few commenters asserted that in broadening the scope of 
independent consultant dam safety inspections, the NOPR takes a one-
size-fits-all approach that will place an unfair burden on Alaska's 
smaller, less complex projects.\86\ The Alaska commenters further 
suggest that the NOPR underestimated the costs to small projects of the 
proposed changes to independent consultant inspections, particularly by 
failing to consider the costs associated with a larger inspection team 
traveling to project sites in Alaska, including the cost of remote 
travel.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See, e.g., Alaska Power Association's September 18, 2020 
Comments (Alaska Power Comments); Cooper Valley Electric's September 
14, 2020 Comments (Cooper Valley Comments); Alaska Electric Light & 
Power Company's September 18, 2020 Comments (Alaska Electric 
Comments); see also U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's November 5, 2020 
letter (supporting Alaska Power Association's comments).
    \87\ See, e.g., Alaska Power Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. The Commission did not take a one-size-fits-all approach to the 
changes to the project safety inspection program proposed in the NOPR 
and adopted, with modifications, in this final rule. As explained 
above, the revised inspection approach provides for a two-tier 
inspection structure, consisting of a periodic inspection (Sec.  12.35) 
and a more robust comprehensive assessment (Sec.  12.37). The size of 
the inspection team is dependent on the project so that it is 
``commensurate with the scale, complexity, and relevant technical 
disciplines of the project and type of review, inspection, and 
assessment being performed.'' \88\ Moreover, Sec.  12.31(b) of the 
final rule defines an independent consultant team as consisting of one 
or more people. For less complex projects, one individual may be able 
to satisfy the requirements of an independent consultant team. Finally, 
the final rule incorporates provisions to allow less complex project 
licensees to seek an exemption from the requirements of subpart D 
(Sec.  12.33(a)), a waiver of the 10-year requirement to perform a 
comprehensive assessment (Sec.  12.34), or a waiver of the requirement 
to perform a risk analysis as part of the comprehensive assessment 
(Sec.  12.37(g)). Each of these provisions is designed to allow 
independent consultant

[[Page 1501]]

inspections to be tailored to the unique circumstances and safety 
issues of each project and, if circumstances warrant, to eliminate or 
reduce the frequency of certain subpart D requirements. Comments 
specific to burden and costs estimates for the information collection 
activities associated with this final rule are addressed below.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 18 CFR 12.31(b)(3).
    \89\ See discussion infra Part V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Owner's Dam Safety Program

    100. As the NOPR explained, the Commission began developing its 
Owner's Dam Safety Program guidance following the December 2005 failure 
of Taum Sauk Dam, in an effort to encourage licensees to foster and 
prioritize a strong dam safety culture among their organizations and to 
help decrease the likelihood of preventable dam safety incidents. In 
August 2012, the Director of D2SI issued letters to all owners of high 
or significant hazard potential dams requiring them to develop and 
submit an Owner's Dam Safety Program.\90\ Additional information and 
guidance on the development of an Owner's Dam Safety Program has been 
available on the Commission's website since this time. New subpart F 
consolidates and codifies that guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Letter to All Licensees and Exemptees of High and 
Significant Hazard Potential Dams Requiring Submittal of an Owner's 
Dam Safety Program, August 2012, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/letter-submit-odsp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Section 12.60--Applicability
    101. Section 12.60 specifies that an Owner's Dam Safety Program 
must be submitted by any licensee that has a dam or other project work 
with a high or significant hazard potential. This does not represent a 
change from existing practice.
    102. No comments were received on this section. Following the NOPR, 
the cross-reference to the definitions of high or significant hazard 
potential was updated based on the revised definitions contained in 
Sec.  12.3(b)(13)(i) and (ii). No other revisions were made to proposed 
Sec.  12.60 following the NOPR.
2. Section 12.61--Definitions
    103. Section 12.61 defines the terms ``Chief Dam Safety Engineer'' 
and ``Chief Dam Safety Coordinator,'' as used in subpart F. The Chief 
Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator is defined as the 
person who oversees the implementation of the Owner's Dam Safety 
Program and has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of the 
licensee's dams and other project works. The only difference between 
the definitions is that a Chief Dam Safety Engineer must be a licensed 
professional engineer.
    104. In response to the NOPR, commenters requested clarification of 
professional engineer licensure,\91\ and suggested that flexibility 
should be built in to allow licensees to use different terms than those 
provided in this section.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ CEATI Comments at 14-15.
    \92\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. Individual states determine the requirements for the licensure 
of professional engineers. Those performing professional engineering 
services are responsible for following applicable state regulations. 
The final rule revises Sec.  12.61(a) to indicate that the Chief Dam 
Safety Engineer must be a licensed professional engineer with 
experience in dam safety. For consistency, the final rule also revises 
Sec.  12.61(b) to clarify that the Chief Dam Safety Coordinator in ``is 
not required to be a licensed professional engineer.'' The terms Chief 
Dam Safety Engineer and Chief Dam Safety Coordinator should be used 
consistently in documentation and correspondence with the Commission. 
No other substantive revisions were made to proposed Sec.  12.61 
following the NOPR.
3. Section 12.62--General Requirements
    106. Section 12.62 establishes three general requirements for an 
Owner's Dam Safety Program. Section 12.62(a) requires an Owner's Dam 
Safety Program to designate either a Chief Dam Safety Engineer or a 
Chief Dam Safety Coordinator. Any Owner's Dam Safety Program that 
applies to one or more dams or other project works with a high hazard 
potential must designate a Chief Dam Safety Engineer. Section 12.62(b) 
requires the Owner's Dam Safety Program to be signed by the owner and 
the Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, as 
applicable. Section 12.62(c) requires the Owner's Dam Safety Program to 
be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis. Although Sec.  12.62(d) 
permits the owner to designate outside parties, such as consultants, to 
serve as Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, the 
owner retains ultimate responsibility for the safety and day-to-day 
implementation of the projects.
    107. Commenters on the NOPR requested clarity as to who from the 
owner's organization should sign the Owner's Dam Safety Program,\93\ 
recommended adding a requirement to provide formal documentation of any 
agreement delegating an individual outside the owner's organization to 
serve as a Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety 
Coordinator,\94\ and stated that the dam safety industry might not have 
sufficiently qualified individuals to perform the requirements.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Id.
    \94\ Id.
    \95\ NHA Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    108. Owner's organizations vary widely in type and size, from sole 
proprietorships to corporations to municipalities. The requirement in 
Sec.  12.62(b) that the owner, along with the Chief Dam Safety Engineer 
or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, sign the Owner's Dam Safety Program 
ensures that the legal entity responsible for the dam(s) or other 
project works accepts the program that is established to promote dam 
safety within their organization in order to help decrease the 
likelihood of preventable dam safety incidents. It is up to each 
organization to determine the appropriate signatory for signing the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program.
    109. The final rule revises Sec.  12.62 to include a statement that 
any delegation of authority made in accordance with the requirements of 
this section must be documented in the Owner's Dam Safety Program and 
to clarify that the responsibilities that may be delegated include 
program implementation. In response to commenters' concerns about a 
lack of qualified individuals, provisions for developing and 
implementing an Owner's Dam Safety Program have been in place as 
guidance for many years and industry has been able to provide adequate 
resources and training to satisfy the requirements of this section. 
Moreover, it is crucial that licensees accept responsibility for, and 
take all reasonable steps to implement, an effective safety program. 
The cross-reference to the definition of high hazard potential was 
updated based on the revised definition contained in Sec.  
12.3(b)(13)(i). No other substantive revisions were made to proposed 
Sec.  12.62 following the NOPR.
4. Section 12.63--Contents of Owner's Dam Safety Program
    110. Section 12.63 establishes the minimum contents of an Owner's 
Dam Safety Program. Sections 12.63(a)-(f) each correspond to a topic 
area that should be addressed in an Owner's Dam Safety Program document 
and identified in the document's table of contents, as provided in 
current D2SI guidance available on the Commission's website.\96\ Under 
Sec.  12.63(g), the NOPR

[[Page 1502]]

also proposed that the Owner's Dam Safety Program should include any 
additional information that may be recommended by the Engineering 
Guidelines, a draft chapter of which is in development and will be 
provided at a later date for public review and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ FERC, Outline for Owner's Dam Safety Program--Table of 
Contents, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/outline-with-discussion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. In response to the NOPR, commenters recommended minor 
editorial changes and requested clarification of what is meant by 
``other information described by the Guidelines'' in Sec.  
12.63(g).\97\ Existing guidance pertaining to the content of an Owner's 
Dam Safety Program is available on the Commission's website. To 
eliminate any confusion, the final rule deletes the references to the 
Engineering Guidelines. No other substantive revisions were made to 
proposed Sec.  12.63 following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See, e.g., CEATI Comments at 16; NHA Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Section 12.64--Annual Review and Update
    112. Section 12.64 requires licensees to review and update an 
Owner's Dam Safety Program. This section specifies that any Owner's Dam 
Safety Program must be reviewed by the licensee's dam safety staff and 
discussed with senior management on an annual basis, and that any 
findings, analysis, corrective measures, or revisions be submitted to 
the Regional Engineer.
    113. In response to the NOPR, commenters recommended deleting the 
entire section as it appears to duplicate submittal of this information 
elsewhere,\98\ requested clarification as to whether the annual review 
of the Owner's Dam Safety Program will take the place of the existing 
annual internal audit,\99\ and requested clarification as to which 
Regional Engineer the Owner's Dam Safety Program should be submitted 
for owners with dams in more than one Regional Office's territory.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See, e.g., NHA Comments at 12-13.
    \99\ Id. at 13.
    \100\ CEATI Comments at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. The annual review and update will replace what commenters, 
such as NHA, refer to as the existing annual internal audit. Further, 
the report on the annual review of the Owner's Dam Safety Program 
should not be conflated with the Owner's Inspection Preparation 
Form.\101\ These are not duplicative efforts. The Owner's Inspection 
Preparation Form is an optional form that an owner may choose to 
complete to help their staff prepare for a field inspection conducted 
by D2SI staff. This form is not typically submitted to the Commission. 
Clarification of the annual review process and how Owner's Dam Safety 
Programs should be filed for owners with dams in multiple Regional 
Offices will be provided in future Commission guidance. No revisions 
were made to proposed Sec.  12.64 following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The Owner's Inspection Preparation Form is an outline of 
specific items related to the Owner's Dam Safety Program to be 
discussed during a field inspection conducted by D2SI staff. This 
form is available on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/what-do-we-see.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Section 12.65--Independent External Audit and Peer Review
    115. Section 12.65 describes the requirements for independent 
external audits and peer reviews, which must be completed at least once 
every five years for any Owner's Dam Safety Program that applies to one 
or more dams or other project works having a high hazard potential 
classification. The qualifications of the review team must be submitted 
to the Regional Engineer in advance, and the Regional Engineer's 
acceptance must be obtained prior to performing the audit or peer 
review. The Commission will review the qualifications to ensure that 
the review team has sufficient expertise and a defined plan to review 
the Owner's Dam Safety Program. The findings of the external audit or 
peer review team must be documented in a report to be reviewed by 
licensee staff, including senior management, and submitted to the 
Regional Engineer.
    116. In response to the NOPR, NHA requested that the external audit 
of the Owner's Dam Safety Program remain separate from the periodic 
inspection and comprehensive assessment,\102\ and CEATI recommended 
identifying a baseline date to be used for the first audit from which 
the deadlines for all subsequent audits could be determined.\103\ 
Commenters also asked about the difference between an independent 
external audit and a peer review,\104\ and suggested adding information 
for terms which ensure the independence of the proposed auditor or peer 
review team.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ NHA Comments at 13.
    \103\ CEATI Comments at 16.
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    117. As explained above, the external audit of the Owner's Dam 
Safety Program is distinct from the independent consultant team's 
review of the Owner's Dam Safety Program during the periodic inspection 
(Sec.  12.35(d)(4)) and comprehensive assessment (Sec.  12.37(d)).\106\ 
Per existing practice, the date of the initial external audit report of 
the Owner's Dam Safety Program establishes the date of the subsequent 
five-year audit reports. Generally, an external audit would be more 
limited in scope and the minimum level of effort compared to the peer 
review process. A licensee may elect to complete a more detailed peer 
review performed by a team of at least three reviewers. If necessary, 
the difference between an external audit and a peer review will be 
further clarified in future Commission guidance. The final rule revises 
Sec.  12.65(b) to include a requirement that the statement of 
qualifications for the proposed auditor must also demonstrate the 
independence of the auditor or peer review team from the licensee and 
its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See supra P 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. Finally, the final rule updates an internal cross-reference to 
the definition of hazard potential and removes the statement that 
additional guidance is provided in the guidelines. No other substantive 
revisions were made to Sec.  12.65 following the NOPR.

C. Public Safety and Miscellaneous Updates

    119. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed several changes to 
subparts A, B, C, and E of 18 CFR part 12, most of which are minor in 
nature and necessary to ensure consistency with the replaced subpart D 
and new subpart F. The two most notable changes relate to the reporting 
of public safety incidents and the development and submittal of public 
safety plans.
1. Subpart A--General Provisions
    120. Subpart A describes the general provisions and definitions 
that apply under part 12 of the regulations. The NOPR proposed to 
update or add several definitions and make other minor changes to 
ensure consistency with replaced subpart D and new subpart F. Section 
12.3(b)(4) provides a list of conditions affecting the safety of 
project works. The NOPR proposed to update two of these conditions to 
ensure their definitions are consistent as applied in current practice. 
In addition, the NOPR proposed to add ``overtopping of any dam, 
abutment, canal, or water conveyance'' to the list of conditions that 
could affect project safety and new definitions for ``Water 
Conveyance,'' ``Engineering Guidelines,'' and ``Owner's Dam Safety 
Program.'' The NOPR proposed additional minor revisions in subpart A to 
ensure

[[Page 1503]]

consistent terminology and to update internal cross-references.
    121. In addition, the Commission proposed to add Sec.  12.4(d) to 
make clear that licensee non-compliance with any dam safety directive 
issued by the Commission, a Regional Engineer, or other authorized 
Commission representative could result in sanctions such as the 
Commission issuing a cease generation order, assessing civil penalties, 
or revoking a project's license pursuant to section 31 of the FPA.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See NOPR, 172 FERC ] 61,061 at P 78; 16 U.S.C. 823b, 825h. 
In response to a request to clarify Sec.  12.4(c)-(d)'s use of the 
phrase ``any order or directive,'' see NHA Comments at 3, we note 
that by adding new Sec.  12.4(d), the final rule does not create new 
penalty authority. Rather, this addition simply serves as a reminder 
that the Commission's existing penalty authority, derived from FPA 
section 31, applies to the requirements of part 12 of the 
Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. In response to the NOPR, NHA recommended that the Commission 
further clarify the definitions of significant and low hazard potential 
and asked why the phrase ``including recreation'' was added to Sec.  
12.3(b)(4)'s definition of ``condition affecting the safety of a 
project or project works.'' \108\ CEATI recommended defining the terms 
``Project,'' ``Project Works,'' ``Dam,'' and ``Development'' and 
suggested that the Commission develop a different hazard potential 
scheme for canals and water conveyance facilities.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ NHA Comments at 3.
    \109\ CEATI Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. Section 12.3(b)(13) of the final rule adds separate 
definitions for ``Significant hazard potential'' (Sec.  
12.3(b)(13)(ii)) and ``Low hazard potential'' (Sec.  12.3(b)(13)(iii)). 
Adding the phrase ``including recreation'' clarifies Sec.  12.3(b)(4)'s 
definition of ``Condition affecting the safety of a project or project 
works'' by providing a statutorily-defined example of ``other 
beneficial public uses.'' \110\ This addition does not expand the 
original definition nor does it represent a departure from D2SI's 
current practice. The terms ``Dam'' and ``Development'' are defined in 
Sec. Sec.  12.3(b)(6) and 12.3(b)(7), respectively. The terms 
``Project'' and ``Project Works'' are defined in section 3 of the 
FPA,\111\ as stated in Sec.  12.3(a). For consistency with the 
statute's terminology, the final rule eliminates references in proposed 
Sec.  12.3 to ``project feature'' by substituting in its place the term 
``project work.'' \112\ For the purposes of defining hazard potential, 
the Commission believes it is appropriate to extend the current 
approach used to define hazard potential for dams to canals and other 
water conveyances. The emphasis on the definition of hazard potential 
is based on the resulting consequences should the structure fail and 
not on the structure itself. Therefore, the Commission does not agree 
with the recommendation to develop a different hazard potential 
definition or approach for canals and water conveyance structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ As revised, the first sentence of 12.4(b) clarifies that 
the definition of Condition affecting the safety of a project or 
project works includes any condition, event, or action at the 
project which might compromise the ability of any project work to 
function safely for its intended purposes, including other 
beneficial public uses such as recreation.
    \111\ 16 U.S.C. 796.
    \112\ To ensure consistent use of the terms ``project works'' or 
``project work'' (if referring to a singular structure), the final 
rule makes similar revisions in Sec. Sec.  12.30, 12.35, 12.60, 
12.61, 12.62, and 12.65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. The final rule deletes the definition of and an additional 
reference to the ``Guidelines.'' The Engineering Guidelines remain 
available on the Commission's website.
    125. The term ``canal'' is deleted in Sec. Sec.  12.3(b)(4)(xiii) 
and 12.3(b)(13) as its usage is redundant with the term ``water 
conveyance'' also used in each paragraph. For clarity, one of the 
conditions affecting safety, found in Sec.  12.3(b)(4)(xi), was revised 
from ``Significant instances of vandalism or sabotage'' to read 
``Security incidents (physical and/or cyber).'' No other substantive 
changes were made to subpart A following the NOPR.
2. Subpart B--Reports and Records
    126. Subpart B describes the requirements for reporting, verifying, 
and providing records to the Commission regarding dam safety-related 
matters, including public safety incidents. The NOPR proposed minor 
revisions to ensure consistency with other sections of the regulations 
and the dam safety program as implemented. In addition, the NOPR 
proposed additional reporting of public safety-related incidents that 
involve deaths, serious injuries, or rescues.
    127. Revised Sec.  12.10(a)(1) expresses the Commission's 
preference that initial reports of conditions affecting the safety of a 
project or its works are made within 72 hours of discovery of the 
condition. The reporting of an incident to the Commission must not in 
any way inhibit an emergency response to that incident.
    128. Revised Sec.  12.10(b) requires licensees to report rescues in 
addition to deaths and serious injuries, and clarifies the definition 
of ``project-related'' for the purpose of complying with the mandatory 
reporting of deaths, serious injuries, and rescues that are considered 
or alleged to be project-related. For precision and to use terminology 
that is generally accepted in the dam safety community, the NOPR 
proposed to replace the term ``project-related accident'' with 
``project-related incident.''
    129. Currently, Sec.  12.10(b)(4) defines ``project-related,'' as 
``any deaths or serious injuries involving a dam, spillway, intake, or 
power line, or which take place at or immediately above or below a 
dam.'' \113\ In D2SI staff's experience, the final clause of the 
definition has been the most problematic for licensees to apply, often 
leading licensees to report as project-related those deaths or serious 
injuries that occur near a dam but are wholly unrelated to the project 
or its operation. The NOPR proposed to revise the definition of 
``project-related'' to make clear that an incident is project-related 
only if it occurs at project works, involves changes in water levels 
resulting from operations of project works, or is otherwise 
attributable to the project or its operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 18 CFR 12.10(b)(4) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    130. In response to the NOPR, CEATI suggested that a threshold for 
reporting rescues and serious injuries should be established by 
excluding minor incidents not requiring treatment at a medical 
facility.\114\ NHA requested clarification of the reporting 
requirements for safety related incidents and clarification of safety 
related incidents related to changes in water levels or flows.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ CEATI Comments at 4-5.
    \115\ NHA Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    131. For clarity, the final rule revises the general structure of 
Sec.  12.10(b) to follow Sec.  12.10(a). Section 12.10(b)(1) provides 
the reporting requirements for initial reports of deaths, serious 
injuries, or rescues. The initial report can be made by email or 
telephone. This is a change from the initial written reporting 
requirements proposed in the NOPR. For consistency, the final rule 
applies this same change to Sec.  12.10(a)'s reporting requirements for 
initial reports of conditions affecting the safety of a project or its 
works to make clear that initial reports can be made by email or 
telephone. Accordingly, the final rule deletes from Sec.  12.10(a) all 
references to ``oral reports'' and adds in its place ``initial 
reports.''
    132. Section 12.10(b)(2) provides the requirements for written 
reports by outlining three categories of incidents and indicating 
whether a written report is required: (i) Any death, serious injury, or 
rescue that is considered or alleged to be project-related (written

[[Page 1504]]

report required); (ii) any death that is not project-related (copy of 
media article or law enforcement report accepted); and (iii) any 
serious injury or rescue that is not project-related (no written report 
required). This structure should clarify the written reporting 
requirements for each type of incident.
    133. In addition, proposed Sec.  12.10(b)(3) from the NOPR was 
deleted, as it provided an outdated form of hard copy submittal 
(newspaper clipping); proposed Sec.  12.10(b)(4) was relocated to Sec.  
12.10(b)(3) of the final rule. The final rule further revises Sec.  
12.10(b)(3)(iii) to clarify that the definition of ``project-related'' 
also includes any deaths, serious injuries, or rescues that involve a 
licensee employee, contractor, or other person performing work at a 
licensed project facility and are related in whole or in part to the 
work being performed. The final rule also adds new Sec.  12.10(b)(4) to 
clarify that, for incident reporting purposes, a serious injury 
includes any injury that results in treatment at a medical facility or 
a response by licensee staff or another trained professional.
    134. Finally, the NOPR proposed and the final rule adopts two 
changes to existing requirements concerning the maintenance of records. 
First, the final rule revises Sec.  12.12(b)(3) to permit storage media 
other than microform, consistent with part 125 of the Commission's 
regulations. Second, the final rule adds Sec.  12.12(d) to require the 
licensee to provide, to the Regional Engineer, physical and electronic 
records necessary to ensure the safety of project works, for all 
projects subject to subpart D or as otherwise requested by the Regional 
Engineer. Under Sec.  12.12(b)(2)(ii)(A) of our existing regulations, 
which remains unchanged, the Regional Engineer has the authority to 
require an applicant or licensee to submit such reports or information. 
NHA suggests that there is no need to require physical records in 
addition to electronic copies and recommends deleting the reference to 
``physical'' in Sec.  12.12(d).\116\ We decline to adopt NHA's 
recommendation because hard copies of certain records are necessary in 
case of a power outage or for those instances when electronic files 
might not be available. No changes were made to proposed Sec.  12.12 
following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ NHA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Subpart C--Emergency Action Plans
    135. Emergency action plans, which must be developed in 
consultation with federal, state, and local public health and safety 
officials, are designed to provide early warning to upstream and 
downstream inhabitants, property owners, operators of water-related 
facilities, recreational users, and others in the vicinity who might be 
affected in the event of a project emergency.\117\ Subpart C describes 
the general requirement that applicants and licensees develop and 
submit emergency action plans, explains when an exemption from this 
requirement may be warranted, identifies the required contents of the 
plans, and describes the timing for plan filing and regular updating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 18 CFR 12.20(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed only minor revisions to 
Sec. Sec.  12.20, 12.22, and 12.24 to ensure consistency with the 
filing guidelines available on the Commission's website and to update 
terminology with respect to the Engineering Guidelines.
    137. The Commission received no comments on its proposed revisions 
to subpart C. The final rule deletes from Sec.  12.22 two references to 
the Engineering Guidelines. No other revisions were made to proposed 
subpart C following the NOPR.
4. Subpart E--Other Responsibilities of Applicant or Licensee
    138. Subpart E describes other applicant and licensee 
responsibilities, including the requirement to install warning and 
public safety devices, and test spillway gates. In the NOPR, the 
Commission proposed to replace one section and update another to codify 
a function of the dam safety program as currently implemented and to 
ensure the use of consistent terminology in conjunction with the 
proposed replacement of subpart D. The Commission further explained 
that subpart E would be renumbered to now include Sec. Sec.  12.50 to 
12.54 to accommodate the proposed inclusion of additional sections in 
subpart D, and that the proposed revisions to subpart E would not 
represent a change in practice.
    139. The revisions to Sec.  12.52 (warning and safety devices, 
previously Sec.  12.42) preserve the current regulatory requirement 
that licensees must install, operate, and maintain warning and safety 
devices to protect the public, with a minor revision to ensure 
consistency with the rest of part 12. Revised Sec.  12.52(b) codifies 
existing D2SI guidance that the Commission may require a licensee to 
submit a public safety plan that documents the installation, operation, 
and maintenance of public safety devices.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ FERC, Guidelines for Public Safety at Hydropower Projects 
(Mar. 1992), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/public-safety.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. Finally, the NOPR proposed to revise Sec.  12.54 (testing 
spillway gates, currently Sec.  12.44) to replace the term ``periodic 
inspection'' with the more generic term ``an inspection.'' This 
terminology change ensures that Commission staff can continue to verify 
the operability of spillway gates during their routine inspections, and 
is intended to prevent this section from being misconstrued as applying 
only to a periodic inspection as it is defined and described in subpart 
D of this final rule.
    141. In response to the NOPR, NHA asks whether the public safety 
plan is required to be developed in accordance with the Commission's 
Guidelines for Public Safety.\119\ Other commenters suggested minor 
revisions to the text of Sec.  12.52(a) related to protecting the 
public from project operations.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ NHA Comments at 12.
    \120\ See, e.g., CEATI Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    142. Section 12.52(b) provides the provision that the Regional 
Engineer may require a licensee to file a public safety plan. The 
Guidelines for Public Safety at Hydropower Projects, available on the 
Commission's website, provide helpful guidance for developing and 
submitting public safety plans. The last sentence in Sec.  12.52(b) was 
deleted to remove the reference to the guidelines. No changes to Sec.  
12.52(a) are necessary as the existing text (formerly located in Sec.  
12.42) is sufficient to ensure that licensees take appropriate warning 
and safety measures to protect the public from changes in flow due to 
project operations.\121\ No substantive revisions were made to subpart 
E following the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The existing text, which this final rule relocates to 
Sec.  12.52(a), requires licensees to install, operate, and maintain 
safety devices to warn the public of fluctuations in flow from the 
project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Information Collection Statement

    143. The Paperwork Reduction Act \122\ requires each federal agency 
to seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval 
before undertaking a collection of information (including reporting, 
record keeping, and public disclosure requirements) directed to ten or 
more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB 
regulations require approval of certain information collection 
requirements contained in

[[Page 1505]]

final rules published in the Federal Register (including deletion, 
revision, or implementation of new requirements).\123\ Upon approval of 
a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and 
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a 
rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of 
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB 
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
    \123\ See 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. The following discussion describes and analyzes the 
collections of information modified by this final rule.
    145. The Commission solicited comments on the Commission's need for 
the proposed information collection in the NOPR and in draft Chapters 
15 through 18 of the Engineering Guidelines,\124\ 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. All burden estimates for all information 
collection activities (including those in Chapters 15 through 18 of the 
Engineering Guidelines) are discussed in this final rule and in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Concurrently with issuance of the NOPR, the Commission 
issued for public comment the draft chapters of the Engineering 
Guidelines in Docket Nos. AD20-20-000 (Chapter 15--Supporting 
Technical Information Document), AD20-21-000 (Chapter 16--Part 12D 
Program), AD20-22-000 (Chapter 17--Potential Failure Mode Analysis), 
and AD20-23-000 (Chapter 18--Level 2 Risk Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    146. Public Reporting Burden: In this final rule, the Commission 
establishes two tiers of independent consultant safety inspection 
reports, codifies existing guidance related to the Owner's Dam Safety 
Program, and requires reporting of rescues that occur at hydroelectric 
projects. The final rule, in conjunction with the corresponding updates 
to the Engineering Guidelines, revises and adds information collection 
activities in 18 CFR part 12.
1. Subpart D: Independent Consultant Inspections
    147. The revisions to 18 CFR part 12, subpart D do not affect the 
current five-year filing cycle for independent consultant's safety 
inspection reports. However, they do modify the scope of reports on an 
alternating cycle, such that the reports alternate between a periodic 
inspection (a reduction in scope compared to the previous inspection 
requirement) and a comprehensive assessment (an increase in scope 
compared to the previous inspection requirement). The hydroelectric 
facilities regulated by the Commission vary greatly in size and 
complexity, and there is no single representative project. To evaluate 
the burden associated with the revisions to independent consultant 
safety inspection reports, Commission staff developed separate cost 
estimates for ``Simple'' and ``Complex'' hydroelectric facilities, 
which are listed in the tables below. Commission staff recognizes that 
there are projects with annualized costs less than the ``Simple'' 
estimate or greater than the ``Complex'' estimate, but Commission staff 
believes the values presented are appropriately representative when 
averaged across the total inventory of hydroelectric projects and 
respondents. The assumption underlying these burden estimates is that 
one-half of licensed projects can be represented by each category.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The cost data presented in the tables reflect the change 
in annualized cost based on the changes described in the final rule. 
The annualized costs are based on the total cost, in 2021 dollars, 
over the typical 10-year Part 12D inspection cycle, which comprises 
one Comprehensive Assessment and one Periodic Inspection, and the 
associated activities. The scope of each inspection and associated 
reporting requirements are defined in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    148. The Commission received comments on some of the information 
collection activities proposed for subpart D. A few commenters raised 
general concerns about the cost estimates provided for independent 
consultant inspections and reports, suggesting that the Commission's 
estimates underestimate the costs to small, less complex projects 
located in Alaska.\126\ The Commission recognizes the unique challenges 
faced by Alaska licensees, but continues to find that the cost 
estimates provided represent average values that are appropriately 
representative when averaged across the total inventory of 
hydroelectric projects and respondents. As described above, the final 
rule includes several provisions that will allow the project safety 
inspection requirements to be tailored to the unique needs and safety 
considerations of individual projects.\127\ CEATI comments that the 
cost for performing a risk analysis can exceed the estimates provided 
in the NOPR and notes that cost estimates of $83 per hour are not 
representative of consulting engineers' fees, which can exceed $150 per 
hour.\128\ Commission staff remains confident that the burden and cost 
estimates presented in the NOPR are representative of the 
implementation efforts described in the final rule. To date, Commission 
staff has performed nearly 30 pilot risk analyses alongside licensees. 
This experience has confirmed that the effort required to complete risk 
analyses closely aligns with the estimates included in the NOPR and 
updated in this final rule. We agree with CEATI that the $83 per hour 
rate is not representative of consulting engineers' fees.\129\ In fact, 
Commission staff's detailed cost breakdowns, which informed the burden 
and cost estimates for professional services contracting costs (see 
Table 2 below), used a range of unit rates up to and including $300 per 
hour for consulting engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See Alaska Power Comments; Cooper Valley Comments; Alaska 
Electric Comments; see also U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's November 
5, 2020 letter (supporting Alaska Power Association's comments).
    \127\ See supra P 99.
    \128\ See CEATI Comments at 2, 3.
    \129\ The $83 per hour figure ($87 per hour in 2021 dollars) 
represents direct costs (generally labor costs) associated with 
licensee staff's performance of efforts related to the changes 
contemplated in the NOPR and adopted in this final rule. These costs 
do not include costs for professional services, such as consulting 
engineers' fees, aside from the costs associated with the licensee's 
administration and execution of contracts for professional services. 
Burden and cost estimates for professional services contracting are 
provided in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    149. Some commenters requested that ``generating equipment'' be 
added to the list of project works excluded from inspections at 18 CFR 
12.32. As discussed above, the Commission is not adopting this 
requested modification because generating equipment is a critical 
element in the passage and discharge of water through a powerhouse and 
the failure of such equipment can result in operational and life safety 
concerns.
    150. Some commenters requested further clarity in subpart D to 
distinguish between the inspection requirements for high hazard 
potential and low hazard potential project works. Because the 
inspection requirements for high and low hazard potential project works 
are discussed in Sec.  12.30, no revisions to 18 CFR 12.32 were made 
based on this comment.
    151. A commenter requested that the Commission reconsider the 
proposal to revise 18 CFR 12.33 by rescinding all previously approved 
exemptions from the requirements of subpart D. The final rule does not 
retain the blanket rescission of all previously approved exemptions and 
instead provides that the Director of D2SI on a case-by-cases basis may 
rescind a previously approved exemption for good cause shown. In 
addition, for future exemption requests, the Director of D2SI may 
require the licensee to complete a comprehensive assessment prior to 
considering the exemption request.

[[Page 1506]]

    152. With regard to the revised information collection activities 
in 18 CFR 12.40, some commenters recommend changing the effective date 
to 18 months following the date of the final rule, extending the due 
date for projects not previously inspected under Part 12 from two years 
to three years, limiting the Regional Engineer's ability to 
unilaterally change the type of report to be filed, and further 
clarifying the purpose of the preliminary report. In response to these 
comments, the final rule revises Sec.  12.40(a)(2) so that the date for 
a report to be filed under this subpart will be 18 months after the 
rule's effective date. The final rule does not, however, change the 
frequency of the required reports. As noted above, Commission staff is 
confident that two years is sufficient time to complete a comprehensive 
assessment and a file a report. Any potential benefits of extending 
this work over a three-year period would be outweighed by the negative 
impacts that would result if too much time elapses between reviewing 
the project information, conducting the inspection and performing the 
Potential Failure Mode Analysis and semi-quantitative risk analysis, 
and preparing the report.
    153. In response to comments, the final rule revises Sec.  12.40(e) 
to include a required finding of ``good cause'' for the Regional 
Engineer to change the type of report due.
    154. In response to requests for further clarity regarding 
preliminary reports, the Commission explains above that the preliminary 
report's purpose is to demonstrate whether the independent consultant 
team has adequately prepared for their inspection, including the review 
of background material and instrumentation data. This requirement helps 
the independent consultant team identify areas in the field that may 
require additional attention or effort. In the NOPR, the Commission 
proposed to include information about the preliminary report in Sec.  
12.40(f). However, because it covers different material, the final rule 
relocates the preliminary report requirement to Sec.  12.42, which is a 
new, standalone section.
2. Subpart F: Owner's Dam Safety Program
    155. The addition of 18 CFR part 12, subpart F codifies existing 
requirements for the preparation or collection of information. As we 
explained in the NOPR, those licensees who are required to prepare an 
Owner's Dam Safety Program, due to the hazard potential classification 
of their licensed project(s), have already done so. When a new license 
is issued for a non-constructed or previously unlicensed project, the 
Commission includes a license article requiring an Owner's Dam Safety 
Program if warranted. There may be situations in which a project's 
hazard potential classification increases from low to either 
significant or high (e.g., due to new housing development within the 
hypothetical inundation area). In that case, if that licensee has no 
other projects classified as significant or high (i.e., does not have 
an Owner's Dam Safety Program), then the licensee would be required to 
prepare a new Owner's Dam Safety Program. However, this is not expected 
to occur frequently or with any regularity.
    156. The Commission received comments on 18 CFR 12.62 (General 
Requirements for Owner's Dam Safety Program), including:
     Requests to clarify who from the owner's organization 
should sign the Owner's Dam Safety Program;
     Recommendations to require formal documentation of any 
agreement delegating the position of Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief 
Dam Safety Coordinator to an individual outside the owner's 
organization; and
     Statements that the dam safety industry may lack 
sufficiently qualified individuals to perform the requirements of 
subpart F.
    157. As explained above, because dam owner's organizations vary 
widely in type and size, from sole proprietorships to corporations to 
municipalities, it is up to each organization to determine the 
appropriate signatory for the Owner's Dam Safety Program. As to 
delegating the role of Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety 
Coordinator to an outside party, the final rule revises Sec.  12.62(d) 
to require that any such delegation of authority be documented in the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program. In response to commenters' concerns about a 
lack of qualified individuals, provisions for developing and 
implementing an Owner's Dam Safety Program have been in place as 
guidance for many years and industry has been able to provide adequate 
resources and training to satisfy the requirements of this section. 
Moreover, as we explain above, it is crucial that licensees accept 
responsibility for, and take all reasonable steps to implement, an 
effective safety program.
    158. Other comments on subpart F asked about the difference between 
a review of an Owner's Dam Safety Program performed during an 
independent consultant inspection and an independent external audit of 
the Owner's Dam Safety Program and suggested adding provisions to 
ensure the independence of the proposed auditor or peer review team.
    159. As explained above, the external audit of the Owner's Dam 
Safety Program, described in 18 CFR 12.65, is distinct from the review 
of the Owner's Dam Safety Program performed as part of the periodic 
inspection and comprehensive assessment described in subpart D. Per 
existing practice, the date of the initial external audit report of the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program establishes the date of the subsequent five-
year audit reports. As explained above, an external audit would 
generally be more limited in scope and the minimum level of effort 
compared to the peer review process. A licensee may elect to complete a 
more detailed peer review performed by a team of at least three 
reviewers. If necessary, the difference between an independent external 
audit and a peer review of the Owner's Dam Safety Program will be 
further clarified in future Commission guidance. The final rule revises 
Sec.  12.65(b) to include a requirement that the statement of 
qualifications must demonstrate the independence of the auditor or peer 
review team from the licensee and its affiliates.
    160. The Commission also received comments on 18 CFR 12.64 (Annual 
Review and Update of the Owner's Dam Safety Program), including:
     A recommendation that the entire section be deleted, since 
it appears to duplicate other information collection activities;
     A request to clarify whether the annual review of the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program will take the place of the existing annual 
internal audit; and
     A request to clarify to which Regional Engineer the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program should be submitted for owners with dams 
located in more than one Regional Office's territory.
    161. As explained above, the report on the annual review of the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program should not be conflated with the Owner's 
Inspection Preparation Form. The Owner's Inspection Preparation Form is 
an optional form that can be completed by the owner to help their staff 
prepare for a field inspection; this form is not typically submitted to 
the Commission. Clarification of the annual review process and how 
Owner's Dam Safety Programs should be filed for owners with dams in 
multiple Regional Offices will be provided in future Commission 
guidance.
    162. As stated above, subpart F codifies previous existing 
requirements for the preparation or collection of Owner's Dam Safety 
Program

[[Page 1507]]

information. Licensees who are required to prepare an Owner's Dam 
Safety Program, due to the hazard potential classification of their 
licensed project(s), have already done so. For this reason, we 
estimated in the NOPR that no incremental burden or cost would result 
from the proposed addition of subpart F.
    163. However, for informational purposes, this final rule now 
provides burden and cost estimates for the information collection 
activities associated with the Owner's Dam Safety Program. The 
Commission recognizes that licensee dam safety programs vary widely 
from large utilities with tens or hundreds of dams to small programs 
with only a single dam. Therefore, to evaluate the burden and cost 
estimates for the Owner's Dam Safety Program and to capture differences 
between large and small programs, Commission staff developed separate 
estimates for ``Small Programs'' and ``Large Programs,'' reflected in 
Tables 1 through 3 below. The ``Small Programs'' category is intended 
to represent licensees with smaller dam safety programs based on the 
number of dams in their inventory (i.e., less than three high or 
significant hazard potential dams). The Commission estimates that 
approximately 80% of licensee dam safety programs are considered Small 
Programs.
3. Subpart B: Reports and Records
    164. The minor revisions to 18 CFR part 12, subpart B require 
licensees to report the rescue of any person that occurs at 
hydroelectric facilities, which is in addition to the previous 
requirements that licensees report public safety incidents that result 
in the death or serious injury of any person.
    165. With respect to changes to subpart B's information collection 
requirements, the Commission received the following comments on 18 CFR 
12.10:
     A suggestion that a threshold for reporting rescues and 
serious injuries should be established by excluding minor incidents not 
requiring treatment at a medical facility; and
     A request to clarify the reporting requirements for safety 
related incidents, including those related to changes in water levels 
or flows.
    166. In response to the suggestion regarding a threshold for 
reporting rescues and serious injuries, the final rule adds new Sec.  
12.10(b)(4) to clarify that a serious injury includes any injury that 
results in treatment at a medical facility or an on-site response by 
licensee staff or another trained professional.
    167. To clarify the reporting of safety-related incidents, the 
Commission explains that Sec.  12.10(b)(1) provides that an initial 
report must be made promptly following any drowning or other incident 
resulting in death, serious injury, or rescue that occurs at the 
project works or involves project operations. The initial report can be 
made by email or telephone. This is a change from the initial written 
reporting requirements included in the NOPR. For consistency, the final 
rule applies this same change to the reporting requirements for initial 
reports of conditions affecting the safety of a project or its works, 
found in Sec.  12.10(a) to make clear that initial reports can be made 
by email or telephone. Section 12.10(b)(2) provides the requirements 
for written reports by outlining three categories of incidents and 
indicating whether a written report is required: (i) Any death, serious 
injury, or rescue that is considered or alleged to be project-related 
(written report required); (ii) any death that is not project-related 
(copy of media article or law enforcement report accepted); and (iii) 
any serious injury or rescue that is not project-related (no written 
report required). The revisions to Sec.  12.10(b) should clarify the 
reporting requirements for each type of incident. In addition, the 
final rule deletes Sec.  12.10(b)(3) from the NOPR as it provided an 
outdated form of hard copy submittal (newspaper clipping). The final 
rule also revises Sec.  12.10(b)(3)(iii) to include in the definition 
of ``project-related,'' any deaths, serious injuries, or rescues that 
``involve of a licensee employee, contractor, or other person 
performing work at a licensed project facility and are related in whole 
or in part to the work being performed.''
4. Engineering Guidelines
    168. The Commission also received comments on the four draft 
chapters of the Engineering Guidelines (Chapters 15-18) that were 
issued concurrently with the NOPR. Some of these comments were similar 
to those received on the NOPR and have been addressed above (e.g., 
additional cost and effort related to new requirements for preparing 
preliminary reports, conducting a comprehensive assessment review 
meeting, and reviewing and providing supplemental record analyses 
included in draft Chapter 16 of the Engineering Guidelines). A few 
commenters stated that the scope of the Potential Failure Mode Analysis 
in draft Chapter 17 of the Engineering Guidelines is too encompassing 
and the risk analysis process described in draft Chapter 18 of the 
Engineering Guidelines goes beyond what should be required for a risk 
analysis at this level of study and that both will increase costs for 
licensees.
    169. Regarding the scope of the Potential Failure Mode Analysis, 
the Commission carefully evaluated specific weaknesses in the current 
Potential Failure Mode Analysis process identified by the Oroville 
Forensic Team and their recommendations for improvements to the 
process.\130\ The improvements to the Potential Failure Mode Analysis 
process, described in Chapter 17 of the Engineering Guidelines, are 
necessary to reduce identified shortcomings in the existing process and 
to provide a comprehensive and systematic approach to identifying and 
evaluating potential failure modes to discover and mitigate future dam 
safety concerns and incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    170. In response to the comment that the risk analysis process 
described in Chapter 18 of the Engineering Guidelines goes beyond what 
should be required for a risk analysis at this level, the Commission 
has reviewed risk analysis approaches and procedures used by other 
federal agencies for conducting risk analysis for similar levels of 
studies. The Commission has modeled the scope and detail of the Level 2 
risk analysis process in Chapter 18 of the Engineering Guidelines after 
the Corps and Reclamation's semi-quantitative risk analysis process 
documented in their Best Practices in Dam and Levee Safety Risk 
Analysis document.\131\ The scope and detail of the Level 2 risk 
analysis process also closely follows the periodic risk analysis 
described in FEMA's Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety Risk 
Management.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Reclamation and the Corps, Chapter A-04 Semi-Quantitative 
Risk Analysis, Best Practices in Dam and Levee Safety Risk Analysis 
(July 2019). https://www.iwrlibrary.us/#/series/Best%20Practices-Manual.
    \132\ See supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Annual Burden and Cost Estimates
    171. The Commission has considered all comments on the NOPR and the 
four draft chapters of the Engineering Guidelines in estimating the 
incremental burden and cost associated with the revised regulations 
adopted in this final rule. Aside from adding the burden and cost 
estimates associated with subpart F's Owner's Dam Safety Program for 
informational purposes and updating the cost estimates to reflect 2021 
dollars, no revisions were made to the burden and cost estimates 
provided in the NOPR.

[[Page 1508]]

    172. Table 1 itemizes the estimated annual burden \133\ and direct 
cost \134\ of the changes resulting from this final rule. Record 
keeping requirements are included in the burden and cost estimates for 
the development and collection of the data and reports. The final 
rule's direct cost estimates have been updated to reflect 2021 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For 
further explanation of what is included in the information 
collection burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 
1320.3.
    \134\ Direct costs are those costs (generally labor costs) 
associated with the applicant's or licensee's staff in the 
performance of the efforts related to the final rule. These do not 
include the costs for professional services, although the direct 
costs do include the costs associated with the applicant's or 
licensee's administration and execution of contracts for 
professional services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \135\ Commission staff believes that, in terms of cost for wages 
and benefits, industry is similarly situated to Commission staff. 
Therefore, we are using the FERC 2021 average cost (for wages plus 
benefits) for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) of $180,703 (or 
$87.00 per hour). We note that the NOPR provided cost estimates in 
2020 dollars.
    \136\ As defined by 18 CFR 12.1(a)(2).
    \137\ As defined by 18 CFR 12.1(a)(1) and (a)(3).
    \138\ Revisions of 18 CFR 12.10(b)(1), 12.10(b)(2), and 
12.10(b)(4) for written reports of project-related deaths, serious 
injuries, or rescues at project works or involving project 
operations.
    \139\ Commission staff assumes the average number of respondents 
who will file a 12.10(b) public safety incident report documenting a 
rescue at a hydroelectric project will equal the average number of 
respondents who filed a 12.10(b) public safety incident report 
documenting a death or serious injury over the 10-year period from 
January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2018.
    \140\ Commission staff assumes the average number of 12.10(b) 
public safety incident reports documenting rescues at hydroelectric 
projects will equal the average number of 12.10(b) reports for 
deaths and serious injuries over the 10-year period from January 1, 
2009 through December 31, 2018.
    \141\ Commission staff estimates no incremental change in direct 
costs due to the final rule change as compared to the current burden 
and costs.
    \142\ Includes direct costs associated with the preparation and 
submittal of Independent Consultant Team Proposals (18 CFR 12.34) 
and Reports for Periodic Inspections and Comprehensive Assessments 
(18 CFR 12.36 and 12.38).
    \143\ Approximately 750 project developments licensed by the 
Commission will be subject to the reporting requirement changes 
resulting from this final rule. This table defines a single response 
as the consolidated filings associated with the typical 10-year 
cycle for Independent Consultant's Safety Inspections, which would 
take effect following implementation of a final rule. A single 
response includes one each of the reports and other filings required 
under the scope of a Periodic Inspection and a Comprehensive 
Assessment. Thus, the total number of responses over a 10-year 
period will be the number of projects (750), divided equally between 
the ``Simple'' and ``Complex'' categories of hydroelectric 
facilities.
    \144\ As previously noted, this table defines a single response 
as the consolidated filings associated with the typical 10-year 
cycle for Independent Consultant's Safety Inspections. Therefore, 
the number of annual responses is averaged over the 10-year period, 
or 0.1 responses on average per year.
    \145\ See supra note 141.
    \146\ Burden costs include hourly wages estimated based on 
complexity of project, scope of inspection, experience and number of 
assigned staff, and were compared to industry estimates provided by 
fewer than nine industry representatives who were contacted by 
Commission staff.
    \147\ 18 CFR 12.33(a) includes a provision for licensees to 
submit a written request to be excluded from the requirements of 
Subpart D.
    \148\ A small program is a licensee with less than three high or 
significant hazard potential dams or other project works.
    \149\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents who 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety Program document will equal the 
number of respondents who filed an original Owner's Dam Safety 
Program document over the period from January 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2019. Commission staff estimates that 80% of the 
respondents are from small programs. Thus, the total number of 
responses (225) times 0.8 is the number of responses from licensees 
from small programs.
    \150\ The number of annual responses is averaged over the five-
year period, or 0.2 responses on average per year.
    \151\ Burden costs include hourly wages estimated based on 
complexity of project, size of program, and scope based on 
Commission staff estimate.
    \152\ A large program is a licensee with three or more high or 
significant hazard potential dams or other project works.
    \153\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents who 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety Program document will equal the 
number of respondents who filed an original Owner's Dam Safety 
Program document over the period from January 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2019. Commission staff estimates that 20% of the 
respondents are from large programs. Thus, the total number of 
responses (225) times 0.2 is the number of responses from licensees 
from large programs.
    \154\ See supra note 149.
    \155\ See supra note 150.
    \156\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents who 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety Program document will equal the 
number of respondents that filed an original Owner's Dam Safety 
Program document over the period from January 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2019.
    \157\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents who 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety statement of qualification for 
external audit or peer review will equal the total number of 
respondents that filed an original statement of qualification for 
external audit or peer review over the period from January 1, 2013, 
through December 31, 2019.
    \158\ See supra note 149.
    \159\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents that 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety report of external audit or peer 
review will equal the number of respondents that filed an original 
Owner's Dam Safety Program report of external audit or peer review 
over the period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. 
Commission staff estimates that 80% of the respondents are from 
small programs. Thus, the total number of responses (225) times 0.8 
is the number of responses from licensees from small programs.
    \160\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents that 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety report of external audit or peer 
review will equal the number of respondents that filed an original 
Owner's Dam Safety Program report of external audit or peer review 
over the period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. 
Commission staff estimates that 20% of the respondents are from 
large programs. Thus, the total number of responses (225) times 0.2 
is the number of responses from licensees from large programs.
    \161\ Commission staff assumes the average number of respondents 
that will file a request for an extension of time to file an Owner's 
Dam Safety Program submittal will equal the average number of 
respondents that filed such a request from January 1, 2013, through 
December 31, 2019.

                                      Table 1--Annual Burden and Direct Cost Changes Resulting From the Final Rule
                                                             in Docket No. RM20-9-000 \135\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Average number                        Total number of
                                                          Number of       of annual       Average annual    annual responses   Total annual burden hours
       Type of respondent           Type of response     respondents    responses per    burden hours and    (Col. C x Col.   and cost (Col. E x Col. F)
                                                                         respondent     cost per response          D)
A.                                B..................              C.              D.  E..................                F.  G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant \136\ or Licensee       Reports of Project-        \139\ 65      \140\ 2.14  2 hrs.; $174.......               139  278 hrs.; $24,186.
 \137\.                            Related Deaths,
                                   Serious Injuries,
                                   or Rescues\138\.
Licensee of Simple Hydro          Ind. Cons. Team           \143\ 375       \144\ 0.1  0 hrs.; $0.........              37.5  0 hrs.; $0.
 Facility \141\.                   Proposals and
                                   Reports on PIs and
                                   CAs \142\.
Licensee of Complex Hydro         Ind. Cons. Team                 375             0.1  \146\ 0.6 hrs.;                  37.5  22.5 hrs.; $1,957.50.
 Facility.                         Proposals and                                        $52.20.
                                   Reports on PIs and
                                   CAs \145\.
Licensee........................  Exemption Requests               10               1  2 hrs.; $174.......                10  20 hrs.; $1,740.
                                   \147\.
Licensee of a Small Program       Owner's Dam Safety        \149\ 180       \150\ 0.2  \151\ 60 hrs.;                     36  2160 hrs.; $187,920.
 \148\ with a High or              Program (ODSP)                                       $5,220.
 Significant Hazard Potential      Document.
 Dam or Other Project Work.

[[Page 1509]]

 
Licensee of a Large Program       ODSP Document......        \153\ 45       \154\ 0.2  \155\ 120 hrs.;                     9  1080 hrs.; $93,960.
 \152\ with a High or                                                                   $10,440.
 Significant Hazard Potential
 Dam or Other Project Work.
Licensee with a High or           ODSP Document             \156\ 225               1  6 hrs.; $522.......               225  1350 hrs.; $117,450.
 Significant Hazard Potential      Revisions.
 Dam or Other Project Work.
Licensee with a High or           ODSP External Audit       \157\ 225       \158\ 0.2  2 hrs.; $174.......                45  90 hrs.; $7,830.
 Significant Hazard Potential      or Peer Review
 Dam or Other Project Work.        Qualification
                                   Statement.
Licensee of Small Program with a  ODSP External             \159\ 180             0.2  2 hrs.; $174.......                36  72 hrs.; $6,264.
 High or Significant Hazard        Audits or Peer
 Potential Dam or Other Project    Review Report.
 Work.
Licensee of Large Program with a  ODSP External              \160\ 45             0.2  2 hrs.; $174.......                 9  18 hrs.; $1,566.
 High or Significant Hazard        Audits or Peer
 Potential Dam or Other Project    Review Report.
 Work.
Licensee with a High or           ODSP Extension of           \161\ 5               1  4 hrs.; $348.......                 5  20 hrs.; $1,740.
 Significant Hazard Potential      Time Request.
 Dam or Other Project Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ...................           1,730  ..............  ...................               589  5,110.5 hrs.; $444,613.50.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    173. Table 2 itemizes the estimated annual burden and annual 
contracting costs for professional services \162\ of the information 
collections that are affected by this final rule. Record keeping 
requirements are included in the burden and cost estimates for the 
development and collection of the data and reports. The final rule's 
cost estimates for professional services have been updated to reflect 
2021 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Contracting costs include costs for professional services, 
including labor, travel and subsistence, and other indirect costs 
incurred by the contractor or consultant. Contracting costs do not 
include direct costs incurred by the applicant or licensee in the 
administration or execution of the contract for professional 
services; those are included in the previous table, as applicable.
    \163\ As defined by 18 CFR 12.1(a)(2).
    \164\ As defined by 18 CFR 12.1(a)(1) and (a)(3).
    \165\ Revisions of 18 CFR 12.10(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4) for 
written reports of project-related deaths, serious injuries, or 
rescues at project works or involving project operations.
    \166\ Includes contracting costs for professional services 
associated with the preparation and submittal of Independent 
Consultant Team Proposals (18 CFR 12.34) and Reports for Periodic 
Inspections and Comprehensive Assessments (18 CFR 12.36 and 12.38).
    \167\ Approximately 750 project developments licensed by the 
Commission will be subject to the reporting requirement changes 
resulting from this final rule. This table defines a single response 
as the consolidated filings associated with the typical 10-year 
cycle for Independent Consultant's Safety Inspections, which would 
take effect following implementation of a final rule. A single 
response includes one each of the reports and other filings required 
under the scope of a Periodic Inspection and a Comprehensive 
Assessment. Thus, the total number of responses over a 10-year 
period will be the number of projects (750), divided equally between 
the ``Simple'' and ``Complex'' categories of hydroelectric 
facilities.
    \168\ As previously noted, this table defines a single response 
as the consolidated filings associated with the typical 10-year 
cycle for Independent Consultant's Safety Inspections. Therefore, 
the number of annual responses is averaged over the 10-year period, 
or 0.1 responses on average per year.
    \169\ Burden costs include hourly wages estimated based on 
complexity of project, scope of inspection, experience and number of 
assigned staff, and were compared to industry estimates provided by 
fewer than nine industry representatives. 2020 cost information 
escalated by five percent to 2021 costs.
    \170\ See supra note 165.
    \171\ See supra note 168.
    \172\ 18 CFR 12.33(a) includes a provision for licensees to 
submit a written request to be excluded from the requirements of 
subpart D.
    \173\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents that 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety Program statement of qualification 
for external audit or peer review will equal the number of 
respondents that filed an original statement of qualification for 
external audit or peer review over the period from January 1, 2013, 
through December 31, 2019.
    \174\ The number of annual responses is averaged over the five-
year period, or 0.2 responses on average per year.
    \175\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents that 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety report of audit or peer review will 
equal the number of respondents who filed an original Owner's Dam 
Safety Program report of audit or peer review over the period from 
January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. Commission staff 
estimates that 80% of the respondents are from small programs. Thus, 
the total number of responses (225) times 0.8 is the number of 
responses from licensees from small programs.
    \176\ Burden costs include hourly wages estimated based on 
complexity of project, size of program, and scope based on 
Commission staff estimate.
    \177\ Commission staff assumes the number of respondents who 
will file an Owner's Dam Safety report of external audit or peer 
review will equal the number of respondents that filed an original 
Owner's Dam Safety Program report of external audit or peer review 
over the period from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. 
Commission staff estimates that 20% of the respondents are from 
large programs. Thus, the total number of responses (225) times 0.2 
is the number of responses from licensees from large programs.

[[Page 1510]]



          Table 2--Annual Burden and Contracting Cost for Professional Services Changes Resulting From the Final Rule in Docket No. RM20-9-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Average number                        Total number of
                                                          Number of       of annual       Average annual    annual responses   Total annual burden hours
       Type of respondent           Type of response     respondents    responses per    burden hours and    (Col. C x Col.   and cost (Col. E x Col. F)
                                                                         respondent     cost per response          D)
A.                                B..................              C.              D.  E..................                F.  G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant \163\ or Licensee       Reports of Project-   There are no anticipated costs for contracted professional services affected by this final rule.
 \164\.                            Related Deaths,
                                   Serious Injuries,
                                   or Rescues \165\.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee of Simple Hydro          Ind. Cons. Team           \167\ 375       \168\ 0.1  12 hrs.; \169\                   37.5  450 hrs.; $99,412.50.
 Facility.                         Proposals and                                        $2,651.
                                   Reports on PIs and
                                   CAs \166\.
Licensee of Complex Hydro         Ind. Cons. Team                 375             0.1  32 hrs.; \171\                   37.5  1,200 hrs.; $274,837.50.
 Facility.                         Proposals and                                        $7,329.
                                   Reports on PIs and
                                   CAs \170\.
Licensee........................  Exemption Requests    There are no anticipated costs for contracted professional services affected by this final rule.
                                   \172\.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee of a Small Program with  ODSP Document......   There are no anticipated costs for contracted professional services affected by this final rule
 a High or Significant Hazard                                                                       change.
 Potential Dam or Other Project
 Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee of a Large Program with  ODSP Document......   There are no anticipated costs for contracted professional services affected by this final rule
 a High or Significant Hazard                                                                       change.
 Potential Dam or Other Project
 Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee with a High or           ODSP Document         There are no anticipated costs for contracted professional services affected by this final rule
 Significant Hazard Potential      Revisions.                                                       change.
 Dam or Other Project Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee with a High or           ODSP External Audit       \173\ 225       \174\ 0.2  6 hrs; $522........                45  270 hrs; $23,490.
 Significant Hazard Potential      or Peer Review
 Dam or Other Project Work.        Qualification
                                   Statement.
Licensee of a Small Program with  ODSP External Audit       \175\ 180             0.2  60 \176\ hrs;                      36  2160 hrs; $567,000.
 a High or Significant Hazard      or Peer Review                                       $15,750.
 Potential Dam or Other Project    Report.
 Work.
Licensee of a Large Program with  ODSP External              \177\ 45             0.2  240 hrs; $75,600...                 9  2160 hrs; $680,400.
 a High or Significant Hazard      Audits or Peer
 Potential Dam or Other Project    Review Report.
 Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensee with a High or           ODSP Extension of     There are no anticipated costs for contracted professional services affected by this final rule
 Significant Hazard Potential      Time Request.                                                    change.
 Dam or Other Project Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ...................            1200  ..............  ...................               165  6,240 hrs.; $1,645,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    174. Table 3 itemizes the estimated annual burden and total cost 
(direct costs [from Table 1] and costs for contracted professional 
services [from Table 2]), of the changes due to this final rule. Record 
keeping requirements are included in the burden and cost estimates for 
the development and collection of the data and reports.
     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ As defined by 18 CFR 12.1(a)(2).
    \179\ As defined by 18 CFR 12.1(a)(1) and (a)(3).
    \180\ Revisions of 18 CFR 12.10(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4) for 
written reports of project-related deaths, serious injuries, or 
rescues at project works or involving project operations.
    \181\ Includes direct and contracting burden and cost.
    \182\ Includes direct costs associated with the preparation and 
submittal of Independent Consultant Team Proposals (18 CFR 12.34) 
and Reports for Periodic Inspections and Comprehensive Assessments 
(18 CFR 12.36 and 12.38).
    \183\ Includes direct and contracting burden and cost.
    \184\ 18 CFR 12.33(a) includes a provision for Licensees to 
submit a written request to be excluded from the requirements of 
subpart D.
    \185\ Includes direct and contracting burden and cost.
    \186\ Includes direct and contracting burden and cost.
    \187\ Includes direct and contracting burden and cost.

                          Table 3--Total Annual Burden and Cost Changes Resulting From the Final Rule in Docket No. RM20-9-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Average number                        Total number of
                                                          Number of       of annual       Average annual    annual responses   Total annual burden hours
       Type of respondent           Type of response     respondents    responses per    burden hours and    (Col. C x Col.   and cost (Col. E x Col. F)
                                                                         respondent     cost per response          D)
A.                                B..................              C.              D.  E..................                F.  G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant \178\ or Licensee       Reports of Project-              65            2.14  2 hrs.; $174.......               139  278 hrs.; $24,186.
 \179\.                            Related Deaths,
                                   Serious Injuries,
                                   or Rescues \180\.
Licensee of Simple Hydro          Ind. Cons. Team                 375             0.1  12 hrs.; $2,651....              37.5  450 hrs.; $99,412.50.
 Facility \181\.                   Proposals and
                                   Reports on PIs and
                                   CAs \182\.
Licensee of Complex Hydro         Ind. Cons. Team                 375             0.1  32.6 hrs.;                       37.5  1,222.5 hrs.; $276,795.
 Facility \183\.                   Proposals and                                        $7,381.20.
                                   Reports on PIs and
                                   CAs.
Licensee........................  Exemption Requests               10               1  2 hrs.; $174.......                10  20 hrs.; $1,740.
                                   \184\.

[[Page 1511]]

 
Licensee of a Small Program with  ODSP Document......             180             0.2  60 hrs.; $5,220....                36  2160 hrs.; $187,920.
 a High or Significant Hazard
 Potential Dam or Other Project
 Work.
Licensee of a Large Program with  ODSP Document......              45             0.2  120 hrs.; $10,440..                 9  1080 hrs.; $93,960.
 a High or Significant Hazard
 Potential Dam or Other Project
 Work.
Licensee with a High or           ODSP Document                   225               1  6 hrs.; $522.......               225  1350 hrs.; $117,450.
 Significant Hazard Potential      Revisions.
 Dam or Other Project Work.
Licensee with a High or           ODSP External Audit             225             0.2  8 hrs.; $696.......                45  360 hrs; $31,320.
 Significant Hazard Potential      or Peer Review
 Dam or Other Project Work \185\.  Qualification
                                   Statement.
Licensee of a Small Program with  ODSP External                   180             0.2  62 hrs.; $15,924...                36  2232 hrs.; $573,264.
 a High or Significant Hazard      Audits or Peer
 Potential Dam or Other Project    Review Report.
 Work \186\.
Licensee of a Large Program with  ODSP External Audit              45             0.2  242 hrs.; $75,774..                 9  2178 hrs.; $681,966.
 a High or Significant Hazard      or Peer Review
 Potential Dam or Other Project    Report.
 Work \187\.
Licensee with a High or           ODSP Extension of                 5               1  4 hrs.; $348.......                 5  20 hrs.; $1,740.
 Significant Hazard Potential      Time Request.
 Dam or Other Project Work.
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Direct Costs &          ...................            1730  ..............  ...................               589  11,350.5 hrs.;
     Contracting Costs due to                                                                                                  $2,089,753.50.
     Final Rule in RM20-9-000 &
     AD20-20, -21, -22, & -23.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    175. Title: FERC-517, Safety of Water Power Projects and Project 
Works.
    176. Action: Revision to the scope of independent consultant safety 
inspections and reports, codification of the Owner's Dam Safety 
Program, and addition of reporting requirements related to public 
safety incidents at hydroelectric projects.
    177. OMB Control No.: 1902-TBD.
    178. Respondents: Hydroelectric licensees (and applicants, as 
applicable), including municipalities, businesses, private citizens, 
and for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.
    179. Frequency of Information: On occasion, except for reports on 
periodic inspections and comprehensive assessment, which must be 
submitted under 18 CFR 12.40:
     For any project that was inspected in accordance with 18 
CFR part 12 prior to January 1, 2022, a periodic inspection or 
comprehensive assessment must be completed, and a report on it filed, 
within five years of the due date of the most recent report. In 
addition, the first comprehensive assessment must be completed, and the 
report on it filed, by December 31, 2038.
     A licensed project development is subject to a different 
set of deadlines if the development was not inspected in accordance 
with 18 CFR part 12 prior to January 1, 2022, under the Commission's 
rules in effect on January 1, 2020. In these circumstances, the first 
comprehensive assessment and the report on it are due:
    [cir] Not later than two years after the date of issuance of the 
order licensing a development or amending a license to include that 
development, if the development meets the criteria specified in 
Sec. Sec.  12.30(a)(1) or 12.30(a)(2), and was constructed before the 
date of issuance of such order.
    [cir] Not later than five years after the date of issuance of the 
order licensing that development, or amending a license to include that 
development, if the development was constructed after the date of 
issuance of such order.
    [cir] No later than two years after a date specified by the 
Regional Engineer, for other developments that were not inspected prior 
to January 1, 2022, under the Commission's rules in effect on January 
1, 2020.
    180. Necessity of Information: The revisions in this final rule are 
necessary to enhance the ability of Commission staff to protect the 
safety of dams and the public; to reduce the risk to life, health, and 
property associated with hydroelectric projects; and to comply with 
guidance from FEMA's Interagency Committee on Dam Safety.
    181. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the revisions and 
has determined that they are necessary. These requirements conform to 
the Commission's need for efficient information collection, 
communication, and management within the energy industry. The 
Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates 
associated with the information collection requirements.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Commission staff contacted fewer than nine parties to 
obtain supporting information in order to benchmark burden 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    182. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at 
one of the following methods:
     USPS: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Ellen Brown, 
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
     Hard copy communication other than USPS: Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
     Email: [email protected].
     Phone: (202) 502-8663, or by fax: (202) 273-0873.
    183. Please send comments concerning the collection of information 
and the associated burden estimates to: Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget [Attention: Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer]. Due to security concerns, 
comments should be sent directly to

[[Page 1512]]

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Comments submitted to OMB should be 
sent within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register and refer to FERC-517 and OMB Control No. 1902-TBD.

B. Environmental Analysis

    184. The Commission is required to prepare an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement for any action that may 
have a significant effect on the human environment.\189\ Excluded from 
this requirement are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or 
procedural, or that do not substantially change the effect of 
legislation or the regulations being amended.\190\ This final rule 
revises the Commission's dam safety regulations by incorporating a two-
tier structure for independent consultant safety inspections, codifying 
guidance requiring licensees to develop an owner's dam safety program 
and a public safety plan; expanding the scope of public safety incident 
reporting; and incorporating various minor revisions. Because this 
final rule does not substantially change the effect of the Commission's 
part 12 regulations, preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. 
& Regs. ] 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \190\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    185. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \191\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final 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 final rule and minimize any 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\192\ In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis, 
an agency may certify that a final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \192\ Id. 603(c).
    \193\ Id. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    186. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size 
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\194\ 
The SBA size standard for electric utilities is based on the number of 
employees, including affiliates.\195\ Under SBA's current size 
standards, a hydroelectric power generator (NAICS code 221111) \196\ is 
small if, including its affiliates, it employs 500 or fewer 
people.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ 13 CFR 121.101 (2021).
    \195\ Id. 121.201.
    \196\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
is an industry classification system that Federal statistical 
agencies use to categorize businesses for the purpose of collecting, 
analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 
economy. United States Census Bureau, North American Industry 
Classification System, https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
    \197\ 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22--Utilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    187. The final rule's revisions to part 12, subpart D would 
directly affect all licensees that are currently required to file 
independent consultant safety inspection reports. Since the number of 
licensed projects per respondent varies from one to more than 50, the 
number of respondents does not correlate directly to the number of 
responses. Based on data over the preceding 10-year-period, Commission 
staff estimated the expected number of responses from entities that 
qualify as small. In total, approximately 132 entities qualify as small 
and would be expected to file approximately 225 responses (30%) with 
the Commission over the 10-year cycle. The remaining 525 responses 
(70%) would be filed by 106 entities that do not qualify as small.
    188. The Commission notes that the projects owned by entities that 
qualify as small entities are typically smaller and/or less complex 
than those owned by large entities. Thus, the annual incremental cost 
to small entities would likely skew towards the ``Simple Hydroelectric 
Facility'' category presented in the burden estimates provided above in 
the Information Collection Statement section.\198\ In addition, this 
final rule incorporates provisions that grant Commission staff the 
authority, upon demonstration by the licensee and Commission review and 
acceptance of appropriate justification, to waive or reduce the scope 
of specific components of an independent consultant safety inspection 
(e.g., waiving the requirement to perform a Potential Failure Mode 
Analysis or risk analysis) or to change the type of inspection report 
(e.g., by allowing an inspection scheduled as a comprehensive 
assessment to be performed instead as a periodic inspection). The 
Commission has included these provisions to focus effort on those 
projects that present greater risk to life, health, and property, and 
to alleviate the potential economic impact on licensees of simple 
projects that present less risk. Since the burden estimates include all 
components of an independent consultant safety inspection, utilization 
of these provisions may result in a lower incremental cost for small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See discussion and accompanying tables supra Part V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    189. The addition of part 12, subpart F, which codifies the Owner's 
Dam Safety Program, would apply only to entities that are responsible 
for one or more projects classified as having a high hazard potential. 
The Commission expects the Owner's Dam Safety Program to improve 
communication and understanding within licensee organizations as to 
their responsibilities for ensuring dam safety and protection of the 
public, and may contribute to an increased likelihood that preventable 
dam safety issues are caught and addressed before they present an 
imminent danger to life safety or property. Because those licensees 
required to prepare an Owner's Dam Safety Program due to their 
project's hazard potential classification have already done so,\199\ 
the Commission does not anticipate that the addition of subpart F will 
be unduly burdensome on licensees, regardless of their status as a 
small or large entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See supra P 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    190. With respect to the filing of public safety incidents 
involving the rescue of any person at a hydroelectric facility, the 
Commission estimates that most affected entities qualify as small 
entities. But, as reflected in the burden and cost estimates provided 
above, the Commission expects an additional two burden hours (and 
corresponding $166, an amount that would not be considered significant) 
for licensees or applicants, regardless of their status as small or 
large.
    191. While the revisions to subpart D may have some increased 
economic impact on a limited number of small entities, these 
improvements to the independent consultant safety inspection process 
are necessary, and the associated costs justified, by the Commission's 
Congressionally-mandated mission to ensure the protection of life, 
health, and property from risks associated with licensed hydroelectric 
facilities. In addition, the revisions to subpart D are intended to 
help prevent future dam safety incidents that could potentially result 
in significant economic impacts on small entities (e.g., financial 
costs associated with causing life loss or property damage, major 
project repairs, lost revenue due to the inability to operate the 
project, etc.).
    192. In summary, based on the estimated costs included in Table 3 
above, the estimated economic impacts on small entities as a result of 
the final

[[Page 1513]]

rule could range from approximately $174 (for the submittal of a one-
time request for an exemption from part 12, subpart D) to over $7,380 
per year for each complex project. A representative cost for a typical 
small entity with one or more simple projects would be approximately 
$2,650 per year per project subject to part 12, subpart D.\200\ 
Commission staff estimates that over 80% of the small entities have two 
or fewer projects subject to subpart D. The above estimates do not 
include the burden and cost associated with the Owner's Dam Safety 
Program as those licensees required to prepare an Owner's Dam Safety 
Program have already done so. Generally, however, the estimated costs 
associated with the Owner's Dam Safety Program for small entities could 
range from approximately $3,850 per year for a small program to 
approximately $15,825 per year for a large program. Commission staff 
estimates that ninety percent of the small entities have small 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Commission staff estimates that more than half of the 132 
small entities have one or more simple projects and no complex 
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    193. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the 
Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Document Availability

    194. 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 print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). At 
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's 
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020 
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel 
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    195. 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.
    196. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
website 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].

E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    197. These regulations are effective April 11, 2022. The Commission 
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a 
major rule as defined in section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\201\ This rule is being submitted to 
the Senate, House, Government Accountability Office, and Small Business 
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 12

    Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.

    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Phillips is not 
participating.

    Issued: December 16, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission amends part 12, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 12--SAFETY OF WATER POWER PROJECTS AND PROJECT WORKS

0
1. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  12.3 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4) introductory text, and 
(b)(4)(ii), (v), and (xi);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(xiii) as (b)(4)(xix);
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4)(xiii);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(11) as (b)(14);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (b)(11), (12) and (13).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  12.3   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Authorized Commission representative means the Director of the 
Office of Energy Projects, the Director of the Division of Dam Safety 
and Inspections, the Regional Engineer, or any other member of the 
Commission staff whom the Commission may specifically designate.
    (4) Condition affecting the safety of a project or project works 
means any condition, event, or action at the project which might 
compromise the safety, stability, or integrity of any project work or 
the ability of any project work to function safely for its intended 
purposes, including navigation, water power development, or other 
beneficial public uses, including recreation; or which might otherwise 
adversely affect life, health, or property. Conditions affecting the 
safety of a project or project works include, but are not limited to:
* * * * *
    (ii) Failure of, misoperation of, or failure to operate when 
attempted any facility that controls the release or storage of 
impounded water, such as a gate or a valve;
* * * * *
    (v) Internal erosion, piping, slides, or settlements of materials 
in any dam, foundation, abutment, dike, or embankment;
* * * * *
    (xi) Security incidents (physical and/or cyber);
* * * * *
    (xiii) Overtopping of any dam, abutment, or water conveyance;
* * * * *
    (11) Water conveyance means any canal, penstock, tunnel, flowline, 
flume, siphon, or other project work, constructed or natural, which 
facilitates the movement of water for the generation of hydropower, 
environmental benefit, or other purpose required by the project 
license.
    (12) Owner's Dam Safety Program means the written document that 
formalizes a licensee's dam safety program, including, but not limited 
to, the licensee's dam safety policies; objectives; expectations; 
responsibilities; training program; communication, coordination, and 
reporting; record keeping; succession planning; continuous improvement; 
and audits and assessments.
    (13) Hazard potential for any dam or water conveyance is a 
classification based on the potential consequences in the event of 
failure or misoperation of the dam or water conveyance, and is 
subdivided into categories (e.g., Low, Significant, High).
    (i) High hazard potential generally indicates that failure or 
misoperation will probably cause loss of human life.
    (ii) Significant hazard potential generally indicates that failure 
or misoperation will probably not cause loss of human life but may have 
some amount of economic, environmental, or other consequences.

[[Page 1514]]

    (iii) Low hazard potential generally indicates that failure or 
misoperation will probably not cause loss of human life but may have 
some amount of economic, environmental, or other consequences, 
typically limited to project facilities.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  12.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(ii)(B), and (b)(2)(iii)(A) and 
(B);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(C) and (D);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(C) and (D);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, and (c)(3); 
and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  12.4   Staff administrative responsibility and supervisory 
authority.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Achieving or protecting the safety, stability, security, and 
integrity of the project works or the ability of any project work to 
function safely for its intended purposes, including navigation, water 
power development, or other beneficial public uses; or
    (ii) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Any condition affecting the safety of a project or project 
works or any death, serious injuries, or rescues that occur at, or 
might be attributable to, the water power project;
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Any emergency action plan filed under subpart C of this part;
    (B) Any Owner's Dam Safety Program filed under subpart F of this 
part;
    (C) Any plan of corrective measures, including related schedules, 
submitted after the report of an independent consultant pursuant to 
Sec.  12.36 or Sec.  12.38 or any other inspection report; or
    (D) Any public safety plan filed under Sec.  12.52(b).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Any order or directive issued under this part by a Regional 
Engineer or other authorized Commission representative may be appealed 
to the Commission under Sec.  385.207 of this chapter.
    (2) Any order or directive issued under this part by a Regional 
Engineer or other authorized Commission representative is immediately 
effective and remains in effect until:
* * * * *
    (3) An appeal or motion for rescission, amendment, or stay of any 
order or directive issued under this part must contain a full 
explanation of why granting the appeal or the request for rescission or 
amendment of the order or directive, or for stay for the period 
requested, will not endanger life, health, or property.
    (d) Failure to comply. If a licensee fails to comply with any order 
or directive issued under this part by the Commission, a Regional 
Engineer, or other authorized Commission representative, the licensee 
may be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, civil 
penalties, orders to cease generation, or license revocation.

Subpart B--Reports and Records

0
4. Amend Sec.  12.10 by revising paragraph (a)(1), the first sentence 
of paragraph (a)(2), and paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  12.10   Reporting safety-related incidents.

    (1) * * * Initial reports. An applicant or licensee must report by 
email or telephone to the Regional Engineer any condition affecting the 
safety of a project or projects works, as defined in Sec.  12.3(b)(4). 
The initial report must be made as soon as practicable after that 
condition is discovered, preferably within 72 hours, without unduly 
interfering with any necessary or appropriate emergency repair, alarm, 
or other emergency action procedure.
    (2) * * * Following the initial report required in paragraph 
(a)(1), the applicant or licensee must submit to the Regional Engineer 
a written report on the condition affecting the safety of the project 
or project works verified in accordance with Sec.  12.13. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) Deaths, serious injuries, or rescues. (1) Initial reports. An 
applicant or licensee must report to the Regional Engineer any drowning 
or other incident resulting in death, serious injury, or rescue that 
occurs at the project works or involves project operation. The initial 
report must be made promptly after the incident is discovered, may be 
provided via email or telephone, and must include a description of the 
cause and location of the incident.
    (2) Written reports. Following the initial report required in 
paragraph (b)(1), the applicant or licensee must submit to the Regional 
Engineer a written report.
    (i) For any death, serious injury, or rescue that is considered or 
alleged to be project-related, or occurs at the project works, the 
applicant or licensee must submit to the Regional Engineer a written 
report that describes any remedial actions taken or proposed to avoid 
or reduce the chance of similar occurrences in the future. The written 
report must be verified in accordance with Sec.  12.13.
    (ii) For any death that is not project-related, the applicant or 
licensee may report the death by providing a copy of an article from 
print or electronic media or a report from a law enforcement agency, if 
available.
    (iii) Serious injuries and rescues that are not project-related do 
not require a written report.
    (3) For the purposes of this paragraph (b), project-related 
includes any deaths, serious injuries, or rescues that:
    (i) Involve a project dam, spillway, intake, outlet works, 
tailrace, power canal, powerhouse, powerline, other water conveyance, 
or other appurtenances;
    (ii) Involve changes in water levels or flows caused by generating 
units, project gates, or other flow regulating equipment;
    (iii) Involve a licensee employee, contractor, or other person 
performing work at a licensed project facility and are related in whole 
or in part to the work being performed; or
    (iv) Are otherwise attributable to project works and/or project 
operations.
    (5) For the purposes of this paragraph (b), serious injury includes 
any injury that results in treatment at a medical facility or a 
response by licensee staff or another trained professional.

0
5. Amend Sec.  12.12 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) and 
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  12.12   Maintenance of records.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Instrumentation observations and data collected during 
construction, operation, or maintenance of the project, including 
continuously maintained tabular records and graphs illustrating the 
data collected pursuant to Sec.  12.51; and
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) In accordance with the provisions of part 125 of this chapter, 
the applicant or licensee may select its own storage media to maintain 
original records or record copies at the project site, provided that 
appropriate equipment is available to view the records.
* * * * *
    (d) Provision of records. If the project is subject to subpart D of 
this part, or if requested by the Regional Engineer, the applicant or 
licensee must provide to the Regional Engineer physical and electronic 
copies of the documents

[[Page 1515]]

listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

Subpart C--Emergency Action Plans


Sec.  12.20  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  12.20 in paragraph (a) by removing the words ``three 
copies of''.


Sec.  12.22  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  12.22 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1) introductory text, remove the phrase ``conform 
with the guidelines established, and from time to time revised, by the 
Director of the Office of Energy Projects (available from the division 
of Inspections or the Regional Engineer) to''; and
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, remove ``conforming with the 
guidelines established by the Director of the Office of Energy 
Projects''.


Sec.  12.24  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  12.24 in paragraph (c)(3) by removing the words ``three 
copies of''.

0
9. Revise subpart D to read as follows:
Subpart D--Review, Inspection, and Assessment by Independent Consultant
Sec.
12.30 Applicability.
12.31 Definitions.
12.32 General inspection requirement.
12.33 Exemption.
12.34 Approval of independent consultant team.
12.35 Periodic inspection.
12.36 Report on a period inspection.
12.37 Comprehensive assessment.
12.38 Report on a comprehensive assessment.
12.39 Evaluation of spillway adequacy.
12.40 Time for inspections and reports.
12.41 Corrective measures.
12.42 Preliminary reports.

Subpart D--Review, Inspection, and Assessment by Independent 
Consultant


Sec.  12.30   Applicability.

    This subpart D applies to any licensed project development that:
    (a) Has a dam
    (1) That is more than 32.8 feet (10 meters) in height above 
streambed, as defined in Sec.  12.31(c); or
    (2) With an impoundment gross storage capacity of more than 2,000 
acre-feet (2.5 million cubic meters), as defined in Sec.  12.31(d);
    (b) Has a project work (dam or water conveyance) or any portion 
thereof that has a high hazard potential, as defined in Sec.  
12.3(b)(13)(i); or
    (c) Is determined by the Regional Engineer or other authorized 
Commission representative to require inspection by an independent 
consultant under this subpart D.


Sec.  12.31   Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart D:
    (a) Independent consultant means any person who:
    (1) Is a licensed professional engineer;
    (2) Has at least 10 years of experience and expertise in dam design 
and construction and in the investigation of the safety of existing 
dams;
    (3) Is not an employee of the licensee or its affiliates;
    (4) Has not been an employee of the licensee or its affiliates 
within two years prior to performing engineering and/or scientific 
services for an inspection or assessment under this subpart D; and
    (5) Has not been an agent acting on behalf of the licensee or its 
affiliates, prior to performing engineering and/or scientific services 
for an inspection or assessment under this subpart D.
    (b) An independent consultant team means a group of one or more 
people that:
    (1) Includes at least one independent consultant, as defined in 
paragraph (a) of this section;
    (2) Includes additional qualified engineering and scientific 
professionals as supporting team members, as needed, who meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) of this section;
    (3) Has demonstrable experience and expertise in dam design, 
construction, and the evaluation and assessment of the safety of 
existing dams and their appurtenances, commensurate with the scale, 
complexity, and relevant technical disciplines of the project and type 
of review, inspection, and assessment being performed (periodic 
inspection or comprehensive assessment, as defined in this section).
    (c) Height above streambed means:
    (1) For a dam with a spillway, the vertical distance from the 
lowest elevation of the natural streambed at the downstream toe of the 
dam to the maximum water storage elevation possible without any 
discharge from the spillway. The maximum water storage elevation is:
    (i) For gated spillways, the elevation of the tops of the gates; 
and
    (ii) For ungated spillways, the elevation of the spillway crest or 
the top of any flashboards, whichever is higher.
    (2) For a dam without a spillway, the vertical distance from the 
lowest elevation of the natural streambed at the downstream tow of the 
dam to the lowest point on the crest of the dam.
    (d) Gross storage capacity means the maximum possible volume of 
water impounded by a dam with zero spill, that is, without the 
discharge of water over the dam or a spillway.
    (e) Periodic inspection means an inspection that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  12.35 and is performed by an independent 
consultant team.
    (f) Comprehensive assessment means a project review, inspection, 
and assessment that meets the requirements of Sec.  12.37 and is 
performed by an independent consultant team.
    (g) Previous Part 12D Inspection means the most recent inspection 
performed in accordance with the provisions of this subpart D (a 
periodic inspection, comprehensive assessment, or an inspection 
performed in accordance with the rules established by Order 122).
    (h) Previous Part 12D Report means the report on the Previous Part 
12D Inspection.


Sec.  12.32   General inspection requirement.

    The project works of each development to which this subpart 
applies, excluding transmission and transformation facilities, must be 
inspected on a periodic basis by an independent consultant team to 
identify any actual or potential deficiencies that might endanger life, 
health, or property, including deficiencies that may be in the 
condition of those project works or in the quality or adequacy of 
project maintenance, safety, methods of operation, analyses, and other 
conditions. A report must be prepared by the independent consultant 
team, by or under the direction of at least one independent consultant, 
who may be a member of a consulting firm, to document the findings and 
evaluations made during their inspection. The inspection must be 
performed by the independent consultant team, and the report must be 
filed by the licensee, in accordance with the procedures in this 
subpart D. The licensee must ensure that the independent consultant 
team's report meets all of the requirements set forth in this subpart 
D.


Sec.  12.33   Exemption.

    (a) Upon written request from the licensee, the Director of the 
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections may grant an exemption from the 
requirements of this subpart D in circumstances that clearly establish 
good cause for exemption.
    (b) Good cause for exemption may include the finding that the 
development in question has no dam, canal, or other water conveyance 
except those that meet the criteria for low hazard potential as defined 
in Sec.  12.3(b)(13)(iii).

[[Page 1516]]

    (c) The Director of the Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, for 
good cause shown, may rescind any exemption from this subpart D granted 
by the Director, and may require that a comprehensive assessment be 
completed prior to considering a subsequent request for exemption from 
the licensee.


Sec.  12.34   Approval of independent consultant team.

    (a) The licensee must obtain written approval of the independent 
consultant team, and the facilitator(s) for a potential failure mode 
analysis or risk analysis, from the Director of the Division of Dam 
Safety and Inspections, prior to the performance of a periodic 
inspection or comprehensive assessment under this subpart D.
    (b) At least 180 days prior to performing a periodic inspection or 
comprehensive assessment under this subpart D, the licensee must submit 
to the Director of the Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, with a 
copy to the Regional Engineer, a detailed part 12D inspection plan that 
includes an independent consultant team proposal that describes the 
technical disciplines and level of expertise required to perform the 
inspection.
    (1) If the independent consultant team comprises one person, the 
detailed independent consultant team proposal must:
    (i) Describe the experience of the independent consultant; and
    (ii) Show that the independent consultant meets the requirements as 
defined in Sec. Sec.  12.31(a) and 12.31(b)(3).
    (2) If the independent consultant team comprises more than one 
person, the detailed independent consultant team proposal must:
    (i) Designate one or more persons to serve as independent 
consultant(s);
    (ii) Describe the experience of each member of the independent 
consultant team;
    (iii) Show that each independent consultant meets the requirements 
as defined in Sec.  12.31(a);
    (iv) Show that each member of the independent consultant team who 
is not designated as an independent consultant meets the requirements 
as defined in Sec.  12.31(a)(3) through (5); and
    (v) Show that the independent consultant team meets the 
requirements as defined in Sec.  12.31(b)(3).
    (3) If any member of the independent consultant team has performed 
or substantially contributed to any previous investigation, analysis, 
or other work product that is required to be reviewed and evaluated by 
the independent consultant team as part of the inspection being 
performed, the independent consultant team proposal must include a 
clear delineation of roles and responsibilities that ensures no team 
member will be responsible for reviewing and evaluating their own 
previous work.
    (4) If required information about any supporting team member(s) is 
not available at the time the independent consultant team proposal is 
submitted to the Director of the Division of Dam Safety and 
Inspections, the independent consultant team proposal must state that 
the information will be provided in the preliminary report required by 
Sec.  12.42.
    (5) The 180-day period in paragraph (b) is measured from the 
scheduled date of the physical field inspection, potential failure mode 
analysis, or risk analysis, whichever occurs first.
    (c) Regardless of experience and qualifications, any independent 
consultant may be disapproved by the Director of the Division of Dam 
Safety and Inspections for good cause, such as having had one or more 
reports on an inspection under this subpart D rejected by the 
Commission within the preceding five years.
    (d) The Director of the Division of Dam Safety and Inspections may, 
for good cause shown, grant a waiver of the 10-year requirement in 
Sec.  12.31(a)(2). Any petition for waiver under this paragraph must be 
filed in accordance with Sec.  385.207 of this chapter.


Sec.  12.35   Periodic inspection.

    A periodic inspection must include:
    (a) Review of prior reports. The independent consultant team must 
review and consider all relevant reports on the safety of the 
development made by or written under the direction of Federal or state 
agencies, submitted under Commission regulations, or made by other 
consultants. The licensee must provide to the independent consultant 
team all information and reports necessary to fulfill the requirements 
of this section. The independent consultant team must perform 
sufficient review to have, at the time of the periodic inspection, a 
full understanding of the design, construction, performance, condition, 
upstream and downstream hazard, monitoring, operation, and potential 
failure modes of the project works.
    (b) Physical field inspection. The independent consultant team must 
perform a physical field inspection of accessible project works, 
including galleries, adits, vaults, conduits, earthen and concrete-
lined spillway chutes, the exterior of water conveyances, and other 
non-submerged project works that may require specialized access to 
facilitate inspection. The inspection shall include review and 
assessment of all relevant data concerning:
    (1) Settlement;
    (2) Movement;
    (3) Erosion;
    (4) Seepage;
    (5) Leakage;
    (6) Cracking;
    (7) Deterioration;
    (8) Hydraulics;
    (9) Hydrology;
    (10) Seismicity;
    (11) Internal stress and hydrostatic pressures in project 
structures and their foundations and abutments;
    (12) The condition and performance of foundation drains, dam body 
drains, relief wells, and other pressure-relief systems;
    (13) The condition and performance of any post-tensioned anchors 
installed, and other major modifications completed, to improve the 
stability of project works;
    (14) The stability of critical slopes adjacent to a reservoir or 
project works; and
    (15) Regional and site geological conditions.
    (c) Review of surveillance and monitoring plan and data. The 
independent consultant team must:
    (1) Review the surveillance procedures, instrumentation layout, 
installation details, monitoring frequency, performance history, data 
history and trends, and relevance to potential failure modes; and
    (2) Review the frequency and scope of other surveillance 
activities.
    (d) Review of dam and public safety programs. The independent 
consultant team must review the programs specified in this paragraph.
    (1) Hazard potential. The independent consultant team must review 
the potential inundation area and document any significant changes in 
the magnitude and location of the population at risk since the previous 
inspection under this subpart D.
    (2) Emergency Action Plan. If the project development is subject to 
subpart C of this part, the independent consultant team must review the 
emergency action plan, including the emergency action plan document 
itself, the licensee's training program, and any related time-
sensitivity assessment(s).
    (3) Public Safety Program. The independent consultant team must 
review the public access restrictions and public safety warning signs 
and devices near the project works pursuant to Sec.  12.52.
    (4) Owner's Dam Safety Program. If the project is subject to 
subpart F of this part, the independent consultant team

[[Page 1517]]

must review the implementation of the licensee's Owner's Dam Safety 
Program with respect to the project development being inspected under 
this subpart D.


Sec.  12.36   Report on a periodic inspection.

    (a) Scope. The report must include documentation of all the items 
listed in Sec.  12.35.
    (b) Specific evaluation. The report must include specific 
evaluation of:
    (1) The history of performance of the project works through visual 
observations, analysis of data from monitoring instruments, and 
previous inspections;
    (2) The quality and adequacy of maintenance, surveillance, methods 
of project operations, and risk reduction measures for the protection 
of public safety and continued project operation;
    (3) Potential failure modes, including:
    (i) Each identified potential failure mode associated with the 
project works and whether any potential failure mode is active or 
developing; and
    (ii) Whether any inspection observations or other conditions 
indicate that an unidentified potential failure mode is active, 
developing, or is of sufficient concern to warrant development through 
a supplemental potential failure mode analysis;
    (4) Whether any observed conditions warrant reconsideration of the 
current hazard potential classification; and
    (5) The adequacy of the project's:
    (i) Emergency action plan;
    (ii) Public safety program; and
    (iii) Implementation of the Owner's Dam Safety Program with respect 
to the project development being inspected under this subpart D.
    (c) Changes since the previous inspection. The report must include 
a status update and evaluation of any changes since the Previous Part 
12D Inspection concerning:
    (1) Hydrology. Identify any events that may affect the conclusions 
of the hydrologic or hydraulic analyses of record and evaluate the 
effect on the safety and stability of project works.
    (2) Seismicity. Identify any seismic events that may affect the 
conclusions of the seismicity analyses of record and evaluate the 
effect on the safety and stability of project works.
    (3) Modifications to project works. Identify any modifications made 
to project works and evaluate the performance thereof with respect to 
the design intent.
    (4) Methods of operation. Describe any changes to standard 
operating procedures, equipment available for project operation, and 
evaluate the effect on the safety and stability of project works.
    (5) Results of special inspections. Summarize the findings of any 
special inspections (dive inspection, rope-access gate inspection, toe 
drain inspection, etc.), if any.
    (6) Previous recommendations. List and document the status of 
recommendations made by the independent consultant(s) in the Previous 
Part 12D Report, and any earlier recommendations that remained 
incomplete at the time of the Previous Part 12D Report.
    (7) Outstanding studies and studies completed since the previous 
inspection. List and document the status of any studies completed since 
the Previous Part 12D Inspection and those that remain outstanding at 
the time of the periodic inspection.
    (d) Recommendations. Based on the independent consultant team's 
field observations, evaluations of the project works, and the 
maintenance, surveillance, and methods of operation of the development, 
the report must contain recommendations by the independent 
consultant(s) regarding:
    (1) Any corrective measures, described in Sec.  12.41, necessary 
for the structures, maintenance or surveillance procedures, or methods 
of operation of the project works;
    (2) A reasonable time to carry out each corrective measure; and
    (3) Any new or additional monitoring instruments, periodic 
observations, special inspections, or other methods of monitoring 
project works or conditions that may be required.
    (e) Dissenting views. If the inspection and report were conducted 
and prepared by more than one independent consultant, the report must 
clearly identify and describe any dissenting views concerning the 
evaluations or recommendations of the report that might be held by any 
individual consultant.
    (f) List of participants. The report must identify all professional 
personnel who have participated in the inspection of the project or in 
preparation of the report and the independent consultant(s) who 
directed those activities.
    (g) Statement of independence. Each independent consultant 
responsible for the report must declare that all conclusions and 
recommendations in the report are made independently of the licensee, 
its employees, and its representatives.
    (h) Signature. The report must be signed and sealed, with a 
professional engineer's seal, by each independent consultant 
responsible for the report.


Sec.  12.37   Comprehensive assessment.

    A comprehensive assessment must include:
    (a) Review of prior reports and analyses of record. The independent 
consultant team must review and consider all relevant reports on the 
safety of the development made by or written under the direction of 
Federal or state agencies, submitted under Commission regulations, or 
made by other consultants. The licensee must provide to the independent 
consultant team all information, reports, and analyses of record 
necessary to fulfill the requirements of this section.
    (1) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  12.35(a), the 
independent consultant team must have a full understanding of the risk 
associated with the project works.
    (2) The independent consultant team shall perform a detailed review 
of the as-built drawings; monitoring data; and the methods, 
assumptions, calculations, results, and conclusions of the analyses of 
record pertaining to:
    (i) Geology and seismicity;
    (ii) Hydrology and hydraulics;
    (iii) Stability and structural integrity of project works; and
    (iv) Any other analyses relevant to the safety, stability, and 
operation of project works.
    (b) Physical field inspection. The independent consultant team must 
perform a physical field inspection that complies with Sec.  12.35(b).
    (c) Review of surveillance and monitoring plan and data. The 
independent consultant team must perform a review of surveillance and 
monitoring plan and data that complies with Sec.  12.35(c).
    (d) Review of dam and public safety programs. The independent 
consultant team must perform a review of dam and public safety programs 
that complies with Sec.  12.35(d).
    (e) Supporting Technical Information Document. The comprehensive 
assessment shall include a review of the Supporting Technical 
Information Document.
    (f) Potential failure mode analysis. The comprehensive assessment 
shall include a potential failure mode analysis.
    (g) Risk analysis. The comprehensive assessment shall include a 
risk analysis. The Regional Engineer may, for good cause shown, grant a 
waiver of the requirement to complete a risk analysis. Any petition for 
waiver under this paragraph must be filed in accordance with Sec.  
385.207 of this chapter.

[[Page 1518]]

Sec.  12.38   Report on a comprehensive assessment.

    (a) Scope. The comprehensive assessment report must include 
documentation of all the items listed in Sec.  12.37.
    (b) Specific evaluation. In addition to the items listed in Sec.  
12.36(b)(1) through Sec.  12.36(b)(5), the comprehensive assessment 
report must evaluate:
    (1) The adequacy of spillways, including the effects of overtopping 
of nonoverflow structures, as described in Sec.  12.39;
    (2) The structural adequacy and stability of structures under all 
credible loading conditions;
    (3) The potential for internal erosion and/or piping of 
embankments, foundations, and abutments;
    (4) The design and construction practices used during original 
construction and subsequent modifications, in comparison with the 
industry best practices in use at the time of the inspection under this 
subpart D;
    (5) The adequacy of the Supporting Technical Information Document 
and the attached electronic records; and
    (6) The adequacy and findings of the potential failure mode 
analysis and risk analysis report(s).
    (c) Analyses of record. The comprehensive assessment report must 
include the independent consultant team's evaluation of the 
assumptions, methods, calculations, results, and conclusions of the 
items listed in Sec.  12.37(a)(2)(i) through (iv). The evaluation must:
    (1) Address the accuracy, relevance, and consistency with the 
current state of the practice of dam engineering;
    (2) Be accompanied by sufficient documentation of the independent 
consultant team's rationale, including, as needed, new calculations by 
the independent consultant team to verify that the assumptions, 
methods, calculations, results, and conclusions in the analyses of 
record are correct; and
    (3) If the independent consultant team is unable to review the 
analyses of record for any of the items listed in Sec.  12.37(a)(2)(i) 
through (iv); or if the independent consultant team disagrees with the 
assumptions, methods, calculations, results, or conclusions therein; 
the independent consultant(s) must recommend that the licensee complete 
new analyses to address the identified concerns.
    (d) Changes since the previous inspection. The requirements of this 
section are the same as described in Sec.  12.36(c).
    (e) Recommendations. The requirements of this section are the same 
as described in Sec.  12.36(d).
    (f) Dissenting views. The requirements of this section are the same 
as described in Sec.  12.36(e).
    (g) List of participants. The requirements of this section are the 
same as described in Sec.  12.36(f).
    (h) Statement of independence. The requirements of this section are 
the same as described in Sec.  12.36(g).
    (i) Signature. The requirements of this section are the same as 
described in Sec.  12.36(h).


Sec.  12.39   Evaluation of spillway adequacy.

    The adequacy of any spillway must be evaluated, as part of a 
comprehensive assessment or as otherwise requested by the Regional 
Engineer, by considering hazard potential which would result from 
failure of the project works during normal and flood flows.
    (a) If failure would present a hazard to human life or cause 
significant property damage, the independent consultant team must 
evaluate the following for floods up to and including the probable 
maximum flood:
    (1) The ability of project works to withstand the loading or 
overtopping which may occur during floods;
    (2) The capacity of spillways to prevent the reservoir from rising 
to an elevation that would endanger the project works; and
    (3) The potential for misoperation of; failure to operate; blockage 
of; or debilitating damage to a spillway and its appurtenances 
(including but not limited to structural, mechanical, and electrical 
components of gates, valves, chutes, and training walls); and the 
effect thereof on the maximum reservoir level and potential for 
surcharged loading or overtopping to occur during floods.
    (b) If failure would not present a hazard to human life or cause 
significant property damage, spillway adequacy may be evaluated by 
means of a design flood of lesser magnitude than the probable maximum 
flood provided that the most recent comprehensive assessment report 
required by Sec.  12.38 provides a detailed explanation of and 
rationale for the finding that structural failure would not present a 
hazard to human life or cause significant property damage.


Sec.  12.40   Time for inspections and reports.

    (a) Projects previously inspected by independent consultant. For 
any project that was inspected under this subpart D prior to April 11, 
2022, under the Commission's rules in effect on January 1, 2022:
    (1) A periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment must be 
completed, and the report on it filed, within five years of the due 
date of the Previous Part 12D Report.
    (2) For any report due to be filed under this subpart D after 
October 11, 2023, the Regional Engineer may require that it be a report 
on a comprehensive assessment or a report on a periodic inspection.
    (3) The first comprehensive assessment under this subpart must be 
completed, and the report on it filed, by December 31, 2038.
    (b) Projects not previously inspected by independent consultant. 
For any project that was not inspected under this subpart D prior to 
April 11, 2022, under the Commission's rules in effect on January 1, 
2022:
    (1) For any development that meets the criteria specified in Sec.  
12.30(a)(1) or Sec.  12.30(a)(2), and was constructed before the date 
of issuance of the order licensing that development, or amending a 
license to include that development, the first comprehensive assessment 
under this subpart D must be completed, and the report on it filed, not 
later than two years after the date of issuance of the order licensing 
that development or amending the license to include that development.
    (2) For any development that was constructed after the date of 
issuance of the order licensing that development, or amending a license 
to include that development, the first comprehensive assessment under 
this subpart D must be completed, and the report on it filed, not later 
than five years after the date of issuance of the order licensing that 
development or amending the license to include that development.
    (3) For any development not set forth in either paragraph (b)(1) or 
(b)(2) of this section, the first comprehensive assessment under this 
subpart D must be completed, and the report on it filed, by a date 
specified by the Regional Engineer. The filing date must not be more 
than two years after the date of notification that a comprehensive 
assessment and report under this subpart D are required.
    (c) Subsequent inspections and reports. For subsequent reports 
filed under this subpart D:
    (1) A comprehensive assessment must be completed, and the report on 
it filed, within 10 years of the date the previous comprehensive 
assessment report was due to be filed.
    (2) A periodic inspection must be completed, and the report on it 
filed, within five years of the date the previous comprehensive 
assessment report was due to be filed.
    (d) Extension of time. For good cause shown, the Regional Engineer 
may extend the time for filing the report on

[[Page 1519]]

a comprehensive assessment or periodic inspection under this subpart D.
    (e) Type of Report. For good cause, the Regional Engineer may 
require that any report due to be filed under this subpart D be a 
report on a comprehensive assessment or a report on a periodic 
inspection, notwithstanding the type of review (periodic inspection or 
comprehensive assessment) scheduled to be performed under paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.


Sec.  12.41  Corrective measures.

    (a) Corrective measures. For items identified during a periodic 
inspection or comprehensive assessment as requiring corrective action, 
the following conditions apply:
    (1) Corrective plan and schedule. (i) Not later than 60 days after 
a report on a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment is filed 
with the Regional Engineer, the licensee must submit to the Regional 
Engineer a plan and schedule for addressing the recommendations of the 
independent consultant(s) and for investigating, designing, and 
carrying out any corrective measures that the licensee proposes to 
implement.
    (ii) The plan and schedule may include any proposal, including 
taking no action, that the licensee considers a preferable alternative 
to any corrective measure recommended in the report of the independent 
consultant(s). Any proposed alternative must be accompanied by the 
licensee's complete justification and detailed analysis and evaluation 
in support of that alternative.
    (2) Carrying out the plan. The licensee must complete all 
corrective measures in accordance with the plan and schedule submitted 
to, and approved or modified by, the Regional Engineer, and on an 
annual basis must submit a status report on the corrective measures 
until all have been completed.
    (3) Extension of time. For good cause shown, the Regional Engineer 
may extend the time for filing the plan and schedule required by this 
section.
    (b) Emergency corrective measures. The licensee must provide that 
if, in the course of a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment 
conducted under this subpart D, an independent consultant discovers any 
condition for which emergency corrective measures are advisable, such 
as a condition affecting the safety of a project or project works as 
defined in Sec.  12.3(b)(4) of this part, the independent consultant 
must immediately notify the licensee and the licensee must report that 
condition to the Regional Engineer pursuant to Sec.  12.10(a) of this 
part. Emergency corrective measures must be included in the corrective 
plan and schedule required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and are 
also subject to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.


Sec.  12.42  Preliminary reports.

    At least 30 days prior to the performance of a periodic inspection 
or comprehensive assessment, a preliminary report prepared by the 
independent consultant team must be filed by the licensee with the 
Regional Engineer to document the initial findings, understanding, and 
preparation of the independent consultant team.
    (a) For any periodic inspection, the 30-day period is measured from 
the scheduled date of the physical field inspection.
    (b) For any comprehensive assessment, the 30-day period is measured 
from the scheduled date of the physical field inspection, potential 
failure mode analysis, or risk analysis, whichever occurs first.
    (c) If the Regional Engineer determines that the preliminary report 
does not clearly demonstrate that the independent consultant team is 
adequately prepared for the inspection, the Regional Engineer may 
require the inspection to be postponed. Any such postponement shall not 
constitute good cause for an extension of time under Sec.  12.40(d).
    (d) If any required supporting team member information was not 
provided with the independent consultant team proposal required by 
Sec.  12.34(b), it must be provided with the preliminary report.

Subpart E--Other Responsibilities of Applicant or Licensee


Sec.  Sec.  12.40 through 12.44  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  12.50 
through 12.54]

0
10. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  12.40 through 12.44 as Sec. Sec.  12.50 
through 12.54, respectively.


Sec.  Sec.  12.55 through 12.59  [Reserved]

0
11. Add reserved Sec. Sec.  12.55 through 12.59.

0
12. Amend newly designated Sec.  12.50 in paragraph (a) by removing 
``Sec.  12.39'' and adding in its place ``Sec.  12.41''.

0
13. Revise newly redesignated Sec.  12.52 to read as follows:


Sec.  12.52  Warning and safety devices.

    (a) To the satisfaction of, and within a time specified by the 
Regional Engineer, an applicant or licensee must install, operate, and 
maintain any signs, lights, sirens, barriers, or other safety devices 
that may reasonably be necessary or desirable to warn the public of 
fluctuations in flow from the project or otherwise to protect the 
public in the use of project lands and waters.
    (b) The Regional Engineer may require the applicant or licensee to 
prepare, periodically update, and file with the Commission a public 
safety plan that formalizes the installation, operation, and 
maintenance of all necessary public safety devices.


 Sec.  12.54  [Amended]

0
14. Amend newly redesignated Sec.  12.54 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2), remove ``the periodic'' and add in its place 
``an'' and add ``gate'' directly following the second appearance of the 
word ``spillway''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2), remove ``the periodic'' and add in its place 
``an''.

0
15. Add subpart F, consisting of Sec. Sec.  12.60 through 12.65, to 
read as follows:

Subpart F--Owner's Dam Safety Program

Sec.
12.60 Applicability.
12.61 Definitions.
12.62 General requirements.
12.63 Contents of Owner's Dam Safety Program.
12.64 Annual review and update of Owner's Dam Safety Program.
12.65 Independent external audit and peer review.


Sec.  12.60   Applicability.

    The licensee of any dam or other project work classified as having 
a high or significant hazard potential, as defined in Sec.  
12.3(b)(13)(i) and (ii), is required to submit an Owner's Dam Safety 
Program to the Regional Engineer.


Sec.  12.61  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart F:
    (a) Chief Dam Safety Engineer means the designated individual, who 
is a licensed professional engineer with experience in dam safety, who 
oversees the implementation of the Owner's Dam Safety Program and has 
primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of the licensee's dam(s) 
and other project works.
    (b) Chief Dam Safety Coordinator means the designated individual, 
who is not required to be a licensed professional engineer, who 
oversees the implementation of the Owner's Dam Safety Program and has 
primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of the licensee's dam(s) 
and other project works.

[[Page 1520]]

Sec.  12.62  General requirements.

    (a) The Owner's Dam Safety Program shall designate either a Chief 
Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, as defined in 
Sec.  12.61. Any Owner's Dam Safety Program that includes one or more 
dams or other project works classified as having a high hazard 
potential, as defined in Sec.  12.3(b)(13)(i), shall designate a Chief 
Dam Safety Engineer.
    (b) The Owner's Dam Safety Program must be signed by the Owner and, 
as applicable, the Chief Dam Safety Engineer or the Chief Dam Safety 
Coordinator.
    (c) The Owner's Dam Safety Program must be reviewed and updated on 
a periodic basis as described in Sec.  12.64 and, if applicable, must 
undergo an independent external audit or peer review as described in 
Sec.  12.65.
    (d) The Owner may delegate to others, such as consultants, the work 
of establishing and implementing the Owner's Dam Safety Program and the 
role of Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, as 
applicable.
    (1) If the role of Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety 
Coordinator is delegated to an outside party who does not oversee the 
day-to-day implementation of the Owner's Dam Safety Program, the Owner 
must designate an individual responsible for overseeing the day-to-day 
implementation.
    (2) Any delegation made in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section must be documented in the Owner's Dam Safety Program.
    (3) The Owner retains ultimate responsibility for the safety of the 
dam(s) and other project works covered by the Owner's Dam Safety 
Program.


Sec.  12.63  Contents of Owner's Dam Safety Program.

    The Owner's Dam Safety Program shall contain, at a minimum, the 
following sections:
    (a) Dam safety policy, objectives, and expectations;
    (b) Responsibilities for dam safety;
    (c) Dam safety training program;
    (d) Communication, coordination, reporting, and reports;
    (e) Record keeping and databases; and
    (f) Continuous improvement.


Sec.  12.64  Annual review and update of Owner's Dam Safety Program.

    The Owner's Dam Safety Program, and the implementation thereof, 
shall be reviewed at least once annually by the licensee's dam safety 
staff and discussed with senior management of the Owner's organization. 
The licensee shall submit the results of the annual review, including 
findings, analysis, corrective measures, and/or revisions to the 
Owner's Dam Safety Program, to the Regional Engineer.


Sec.  12.65  Independent external audit and peer review.

    (a) Applicability. For licensees of one or more dams or other 
project works classified as having a high hazard potential, as defined 
in Sec.  12.3(b)(13)(i), an independent external audit or peer review 
of the Owner's Dam Safety Program, and the implementation thereof, 
shall be performed at an interval not to exceed five years.
    (b) Qualifications. A statement of qualifications for the proposed 
auditor(s) or peer review team that demonstrates independence from the 
licensee and its affiliates shall be submitted to the Regional Engineer 
for review, and written acceptance thereof must be obtained from the 
Regional Engineer prior to performing the audit or peer review.
    (c) Reporting. (1) The auditor(s) or peer review team shall 
document their findings in a report.
    (2) The report on the audit or peer review shall be reviewed by the 
Owner, Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, and 
management having responsibility in the area(s) audited or reviewed.
    (3) The report on the audit or peer review shall be submitted to 
the Regional Engineer.

[FR Doc. 2021-27736 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P