[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Pages 42064-42068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16805]



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD13-3-000]

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. 
Moeller, John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark; Order 
Approving Reliability Standard: North American Electric Reliability 

    1. On December 31, 2012, as amended on January 4, 2013, the North 
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition 
for approval of Reliability Standard EOP-004-2--Event Reporting 
(Petition). Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 identifies types of 
reportable events and thresholds for reporting, requires responsible 
entities to have an operating plan for reporting applicable events to 
NERC and other entities (including law enforcement), and requires 
reporting of threshold events within a 24 hour period. NERC requests 
that Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 become effective the first day of 
the first calendar quarter beginning six months following the effective 
date of a final order in this proceeding, and that it replace 
currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-004-1--Disturbance 
Reporting and CIP-001-2a--Sabotage Reporting.
    2. As explained below, pursuant to section 215(d) of the Federal 
Power Act (FPA),\1\ we approve Reliability Standard EOP-004-2, and find 
that it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, 
and in the public interest. We further approve NERC's requested 
effective date for EOP-004-2, along with the retirement of existing 
Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a.

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d) (2006).

I. Background

    3. The Commission certified NERC as the Electric Reliability 
Organization (ERO), as defined in section 215 of the FPA, in July 
2006.\2\ In Order No. 693, the Commission reviewed an initial set of 
Reliability Standards as developed and submitted for review by NERC, 
and approved 83 standards as mandatory and enforceable, including the 
currently-effective Disturbance Reporting Reliability Standard, EOP-

    \2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), 
order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,190, order on reh'g 119 FERC ] 
61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
    \3\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 617, order on 
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).

    4. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved Reliability 
Standard CIP-001-1--Sabotage Reporting. In addition, the Commission 
directed that NERC develop certain modifications to the standard, to 
further define the term sabotage and provide guidance on triggering 
events, specify baseline requirements for recognizing sabotage events, 
incorporate periodic review of sabotage reporting procedures, and 
require that applicable entities contact appropriate governmental 
authorities within a specified time period.\4\

    \4\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 471. The 
Commission subsequently approved an interpretation of CIP-001-1 
(Letter Order issued on Feb. 2, 2011 in Docket No. RR10-11-000, 
accepting NERC's clarification regarding the ``appropriate parties'' 
to which reports of a sabotage event must be made), as well as a 
regional modification to CIP-001-1a (Letter Order issued on August 
2, 2011 in Docket RD11-6-000, approving a regional variance for 
ERCOT to add transmission owners and generator owners as responsible 
entities). Thus, the currently-effective version of the sabotage 
reporting standard is CIP-001-2a.

    5. Project 2009-1--Disturbance and Sabotage Reporting was initiated 
in April 2009, by PJM Interconnection, LLC, as a request for revision 
to existing standard CIP-001-1.\5\ The standard drafting team developed 
EOP-004-2, Event Reporting, as a means of combining the requirements of 
EOP-004-1 and CIP-001 into a single reporting standard.\6\

    \5\ NERC Petition at 7.
    \6\ Id. at 8.

II. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 and NERC's Petition

    6. NERC explains in its Petition that currently-effective 
Reliability Standard EOP-004-1 contains the requirements for reporting 
and analyzing disturbances, while CIP-001-2a addresses sabotage 
reporting. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 
merges EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a, and represents a significant 
improvement in the identification and reporting of events.\7\ According 
to NERC, proposed Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 provides a 
comprehensive approach to reporting disturbances and events that have 
the potential to impact the reliability of the bulk electric system in 
accordance with several Commission directives.\8\

    \7\ Id. at 5.
    \8\ Id. at 3.

    7. As proposed, EOP-004-2 would require the following:
     Responsible entities must have an operating plan for 
reporting applicable events to NERC and others (e.g., Regional 
Entities, applicable reliability coordinators, and law enforcement), 
including procedures for reporting the specific events at thresholds 
identified in Attachment 1 (Requirement R1);
     Responsible entities must report events as defined in 
their operating plan ``within 24 hours of recognition of meeting an 
event type threshold for reporting,'' or by the end of the next 
business day if the event occurs on a weekend (Requirement R2); and
     Responsible entities must validate contact information 
contained in the operating plan on an annual basis (Requirement R3).
    8. Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 includes two attachments. 
Attachment 1 (Reportable Events) identifies types of events and 
thresholds for reporting, such as damage or destruction of a facility, 
physical threats to facilities, firm load loss, and generation loss. 
Attachment 2 is a standardized form for event reporting. NERC notes 
that in an

[[Page 42065]]

effort to minimize administrative burden, U.S. entities may elect to 
use DOE Form OE-417 (Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report), rather 
than Attachment 2, to report under EOP-004-2.\9\

    \9\ Id. at 16.

    9. NERC asserts that the results-based approach of EOP-004-2 
includes clear criteria for reporting and consistent reporting 
timelines. NERC also explains that the proposed reporting requirements 
will ``allow governmental authorities and critical infrastructure 
members the opportunity to react in a meaningful manner'' to 
disturbance or other event information, thereby ``support[ing] 
reliability principles and ultimately help[ing] to protect against 
future malicious physical attacks.'' \10\

    \10\ Id. at 4.

    10. NERC notes, however, that the revised Reliability Standard does 
not further define the term ``sabotage'' as directed in Order No. 693. 
NERC explains that the standard drafting team determined that such a 
definition could be ambiguous and ``inherently subjective.'' \11\ NERC 
explains that the standard drafting team elected instead to develop a 
specific list of reportable events and thresholds (Attachment 1 of the 
standard), as a means of meeting the Commission's directive to provide 
guidance on reportable events. NERC asserts that the development of a 
list of reportable events and thresholds is an equally effective and 
efficient means of addressing the Commission's directive in Order No. 

    \11\ Id. at 8-9.
    \12\ Id. at 9.

III. Notice of Filing, Interventions and Comments

    11. Notices of NERC's Petition and its errata were issued on 
January 2 and January 7, 2013, respectively, with comments, protests 
and motions to intervene due on or before February 4, 2013. American 
Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) filed a timely motion to intervene, on 
January 30, 2013.
    12. On March 7, 2013, seven Independent System Operators and 
Regional Transmission Organizations (Joint ISOs/RTOs) filed a joint 
motion to intervene out-of-time and comments on NERC's Petition.\13\ In 
support of their request for leave to intervene out-of-time, Joint 
ISOs/RTOs maintain that they only learned that a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking would not issue in the docket after the January 30, 2013 
close of the intervention and comment period. Joint ISOs/RTOs maintain 
that their late comments will not prejudice NERC because ISOs and RTOs 
raised similar comments during the standards development process, and 
that late intervention will not prejudice any other party or otherwise 
disrupt this proceeding as the Commission has not yet issued a 
dispositive order.

    \13\ Joint ISOs/RTOs are the California Independent System 
Operator Corporation; Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.; 
Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator; ISO New England 
Inc.; Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; New 
York Independent System Operator, Inc.; and Southwest Power Pool, 

    13. Joint ISOs/RTOs assert that event reporting does not provide 
for ``reliable operations'' and, therefore, should not be incorporated 
in mandatory Reliability Standards. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend that event 
reporting is ``an ex post activity'' that provides only prospective 
benefits to system reliability.\14\ Joint ISOs/RTOs argue that the 
Commission should ``distinguish between an obligation that is a 
`requirement . . . to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power 
system,' as those terms are defined in Section 215, and those 
obligations that do not, such as administrative record-keeping and ex-
post reporting tasks.'' \15\ Joint ISOs/RTOs further maintain that the 
event reporting requirements in EOP-004-2 are redundant to other 
federal regulations, and that they expose registered entities to 
unnecessary liability and burden.\16\ Based on these arguments, Joint 
ISOs/RTOs take the position that the Commission should not only reject 
EOP-004-2, but should also consider retiring or otherwise revisiting 
the existing Reliability Standards governing disturbance and sabotage 
reporting (EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a).

    \14\ Comments of Joint ISOs/RTOs at 6.
    \15\ Id. at 5 (quoting from FPA section 215).
    \16\ See id. at 7.

    14. Joint ISOs/RTOs argue, in the alternative, that if the 
Commission approves EOP-004-2, the Commission should direct certain 
modifications.\17\ In particular, Joint ISOs/RTOs advocate (1) limiting 
reportable events ``to those that give third parties the opportunity to 
act to mitigate the impact of the event'' such as vandalism; \18\ and 
(2) limiting the scope of entities to receive reports to those that can 
act to mitigate the actual event. Joint ISOs/RTOs further maintain that 
certain thresholds for reportable events in Attachment 1 should be 
modified to remove ambiguities. Joint ISOs/RTOs provide one example of 
such ambiguity, claiming that, while Attachment 1 requires reporting 
when ``[d]amage or destruction of a Facility . . . results in actions 
to avoid a BES emergency,'' reliability coordinators and balancing 
authorities take actions on a daily basis to ``avoid a BES Emergency'' 
without knowing whether the underlying system conditions resulted from 
damage or destruction to a facility. According to Joint ISOs/RTOs, the 
reliability coordinator or balancing authority will often not have the 
information to determine whether to submit a report. Finally, Joint 
ISOs/RTOs assert that a strict 24-hour reporting obligation is overly-
stringent and provides no reliability benefit since registered entities 
would have separately mitigated the event.

    \17\ Id. at 8-14. Joint ISOs/RTOs acknowledge that, ``[i]f the 
Commission disagrees with the Joint ISOs/RTOs' position that event 
reporting should not be included in the Reliability Standards . . ., 
proposed standard EOP-004-2 is an improvement over the two events 
reporting standards it would replace . . . .'' Id. at 8.
    \18\ Id. at 9.

IV. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

    15. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, the timely, unopposed motion to intervene 
filed by AMP serves to make it a party to this proceeding. Pursuant to 
Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 
385.214(d) (2012), we will also grant Joint ISOs/RTOs' late-filed 
motion to intervene given their interest in the proceeding, the early 
stage of the proceeding, and the absence of undue prejudice or delay.

B. Commission Determination

    16. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we approve Reliability 
Standard EOP-004-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential, and in the public interest.\19\ We also approve NERC's 
proposed implementation plan for the revised standard, including the 
retirement of existing Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a 
when EOP-004-2 becomes effective. Finally, we approve the proposed 
violation risk factors and violation severity levels incorporated in 
Reliability Standard EOP-004-2.

    \19\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).

    17. We find that EOP-004-2 enhances the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System by requiring timely reporting of specific system 
disturbance or sabotage events, allowing for both a real-time 
operational benefit for near-term mitigation of the event, as well as a 
prospective benefit through subsequent analysis and investigation, 
including dissemination of lessons learned from the event. We conclude 
that EOP-004-2 represents an improvement over the currently-

[[Page 42066]]

effective Reliability Standards, CIP-001-2a and EOP-004-1, in that it 
provides a comprehensive approach to reporting disturbances and events 
that have the potential to impact the reliability of the Bulk-Power 
System and provides greater clarity concerning reportable events. 
Further, we find that NERC has adequately addressed the Commission's 
directives pertaining to event reporting, including requiring the 
periodic update of reporting procedures. With regard to the Order No. 
693 directives that NERC further refine the definition of ``sabotage'' 
and provide guidance on events that trigger reporting,\20\ we find that 
NERC's development of Attachment 1, which lists specific types of 
reportable events and thresholds for reporting, represents an equally 
efficient and effective approach to address our underlying concern.

    \20\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 471.

    18. In addition, we are not persuaded by Joint ISOs/RTOs' arguments 
in support of their request that we either reject or direct 
modification of the proposed standard.
    19. First, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs' argument that event reporting 
is not a proper subject for Reliability Standards because it is 
prospective in nature and is not directly related to or otherwise 
supportive of ``reliable operations'' as that term is used in FPA 
section 215. The prospective benefits from certain aspects of the 
reporting requirements are not only valuable, but also a sufficient 
basis for imposition of a mandatory and enforceable reliability 
requirement. Events reporting allows entities to gain an early 
understanding of the scope of an event, enabling requests for 
assistance from other entities within the industry with appropriate 
expertise and from other governmental agencies who otherwise might not 
know about the event. While assistance would not always be in real 
time, operational planning and system planning can benefit from outside 
expertise to support planning for physical and cyber security, and even 
to support and improve day-ahead and week-ahead operational planning. 
Moreover, patterns of simple events can trigger further analysis and 
recognition of the possibility that corrective measures should be taken 
to prevent even more egregious events that might ensue if left 

    \21\ We have previously approved Reliability Standards that do 
not affect ``real-time operations'' yet still support the reliable 
operation of the Bulk-Power System, including Reliability Standards 
within the several different transmission categories including 
personnel performance, training and qualifications (PER); 
transmission planning (TPL); and facility connection and 
coordination (FAC-001 and FAC-002).

    20. Moreover, EOP-004-2 has been designed to minimize redundancies 
and multiple reporting obligations to the extent possible, by allowing 
responsible entities to report an event either through submission of 
its Attachment 2 or DOE Form OE-417.\22\

    \22\ See NERC Petition at 16.

    21. Nor are we persuaded by Joint ISOs/RTOs that EOP-004-2, if 
adopted, requires modification. We find no reason to require NERC to 
limit reportable events to those that give third parties time to act to 
mitigate the event, or to limit the recipients of such reports to those 
that can act to mitigate actual, real-time events. It is unclear that 
such events could be readily identified, leading to greater confusion 
concerning reporting requirements and a possible loss of information 
about those mitigable events. More importantly, as noted above, we do 
not agree that FPA section 215 limits the scope of Reliability 
Standards to those that directly affect real-time operations, and 
therefore do not agree with the underlying basis for Joint ISOs/RTOs' 
proposed modification.
    22. Further, based on the one example provided by Joint ISOs/RTOs, 
we are not persuaded that the triggering events delineated in 
Attachment 1 require clarification. Joint ISOs/RTOs contend that, while 
Attachment 1 requires reporting when ``[d]amage or destruction of a 
Facility . . . results in actions to avoid a BES emergency,'' 
reliability coordinators and balancing authorities may take actions to 
avoid a BES Emergency without knowing whether the underlying system 
conditions resulted from damage or destruction to a facility. 
Requirement R2 of EOP-004-2 requires reporting of an event ``within 24 
hours of recognition of meeting an event type threshold. . . .'' NERC 
explains that the language of Requirement R2 is based on 
``recognition'' of an event threshold because ``an entity may not be 
immediately aware of destruction or damage to a remote piece of 
equipment'' and ``requiring Responsible Entities to constantly monitor 
all equipment and property for destruction or damage would be a waste 
of resources. . . .'' \23\ We agree that NERC has developed a practical 
solution to reporting that, rather than creating ambiguity, provides a 
more clear and rational trigger for reporting.

    \23\ NERC Petition at 13.

    23. Finally, we reject Joint ISOs/RTOs' objection that the 24-hour 
reporting window is too stringent. As indicated by the Attachment 2 
standardized Event Reporting Form, entities are only required to 
provide limited, specified information pertaining to an event. No 
underlying investigation or analysis is required. If Joint ISOs/RTOs 
believe that improvements can be made to EOP-004-2, through clarifying 
language or other modifications as the industry gains experience with 
EOP-004-2's revised reporting requirements, they can seek to do so 
through NERC's standard development process.
    24. Accordingly, we approve Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 pursuant 
to FPA section 215(d)(2), as we find that it is just, reasonable, not 
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. We 
also approve the associated violation risk factors and violation 
severity levels, NERC's requested effective date for EOP-004-2, and the 
retirement of existing Reliability Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a.

V. Information Collection Statement

    25. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require 
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by 
agency action.\24\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB 
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents 
subject to the filing requirements of this Order will not be penalized 
for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the 
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

    \24\ 5 CFR 1320.11.

    26. The Commission will submit these reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This order is effective immediately; 
however, the revised information collection requirements will not be 
effective or enforceable until OMB approves the information collection 
changes described in this order. Comments are solicited within 60 days 
of the date this order is published in the Federal Register on the 
Commission's need for this information, whether the information will 
have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways 
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's 
burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Submit 
comments following the Commission's

[[Page 42067]]

submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp 
and reference Docket No. RD13-3.
    27. Rather than creating entirely new obligations to report a 
system disturbance, the revised Reliability Standard, EOP-004-2, 
primarily clarifies the thresholds that can trigger a reporting 
obligation, and reduces the reporting burden for certain individual 
respondents due to the use of a simplified form in Attachment 2. 
However, the revised Reliability Standard would increase the reporting 
burden for some individual entities, because it would apply for the 
first time to transmission owners and generator owners. We do not 
anticipate a large increase in the number of respondents because the 
existing Reliability Standard applies to transmission operators and 
generator operators, which includes the majority of the entities 
registered as transmission owners and generator owners.
    28. Burden Estimate: Our estimate below regarding the number of 
respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of March 2013. 
According to the registry, there are 7 transmission owners that are not 
also transmission operators, 128 generator owners that are not also 
generator operators, and 101 distribution providers that are not also 
registered as another functional entity covered by the current event 
reporting standards. Thus, we estimate that a total of 236 entities may 
be subject to the event reporting requirements of EOP-004-2 for the 
first time.\25\

    \25\ Although distribution providers are included as responsible 
entities under the revised Reliability Standard, their reporting 
obligations will be de minimis, as explained in the Guidelines and 
Technical Basis attached to the revised standard. See NERC Petition, 
Ex. B at 13. For purposes of this analysis, however, we included 
distribution providers as part of the assumed number of reports per 

    29. The number of annual reports required could vary widely based 
on the individual entity and the extent of its facilities. The estimate 
below is based on an assumption that, on average, 25 percent of the 
entities covered by EOP-004-2 will have one reportable event per year. 
As demonstrated below, the primary increase in cost associated with the 
revised standard is expected in Year 1, when newly covered entities 
must develop an operating plan for reporting. In Years 2 and 3, an 
overall reduction in reporting and recordkeeping burden is expected, 
due to the simplified reporting form:

    \26\ Year 1 costs include implementation costs for entities that 
must comply with the standard for the first time, plus the cost for 
entities that are currently subject to NERC event reporting 
requirements to review and make changes to their existing plans. The 
Year 1 total also includes the savings from the reduction in 
reporting time due to the new Event Reporting Form.

                                                                           Number of                        Average
       Type of  respondent              Reporting/         Number of     responses per   Total number    burden hours   Estimated total  Estimated total
                                   recordkeeping req't    respondents     respondent     of responses    per response    annual burden     annual cost
                                   ...................             (A)             (B)     (A) x (B) =             (D)              (C) x (D)(see below)
New Entities (GO, TO, DP)........  Developing                      236               1             236               8            1888      $113,280.00
                                    Operating Plan (Yr
                                    1 Only).
                                   Reporting Event (Yr              59               1              59            0.17           10.03           601.80
                                    1, 2, and 3).
Entities Subject to Existing       Conforming                     1164               1            1164               2            2328       139,680.00
 Reporting Requirements.            Operating Plan to
                                    New Thresholds (Yr
                                    1 Only).
                                   Reporting Event                 291               1             291           -0.33          -96.03        (5,761.80)
                                    (using new form)
                                    (Yrs 1, 2, and 3).
    Total for Year 1 \26\........  ...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           4,130          247,800
    Total for each of Years 2 & 3  ...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             (81)          (5,160)

    The estimated breakdown of annual cost is as follows:
 Year 1
    [cir] New Entities, Development of Operating Plan: 236 entities * 1 
response/entity * (8 hours/response * $60/hour \27\) = $113,280.

    \27\ For the burden categories above, the estimated hourly 
loaded cost (salary plus benefits) for an engineer was assumed to be 
$60/hour, based on salaries as reported by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). Loaded 
costs are BLS rates divided by 0.703 and rounded to the nearest 
dollar (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).

    [cir] New Entities, Event Reporting: 59 entities * 1 response/
entity * (.17 hours/response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
    [cir] Current Responsible Entities, Conforming Operating Plan: 1164 
entities * 1 response/entity * (2 hours/response * $60/hour) = 
    [cir] Current Responsible Entities, Event Reporting Using New Event 
Reporting Form: 291 entities * 1 response/entity * [(.17 hours/response 
- .5 hours/response) \28\ * $60/hour] = ($5,761.80).

    \28\ It is estimated that the average time to complete the 
required event report under Reliability Standard EOP-004-1 is 30 
minutes, versus an estimated 10 minutes under the proposed 
Reliability Standard, EOP-004-2.

     Year 2 and ongoing
    [cir] New Entities, Using ``Event Reporting Form'': 59 entities * 1 
response/entity * (.17 hours/response * $60/hour) = $601.80.
    [cir] Old Entities, Using ``Event Reporting Form'': 291 entities * 
1 response/entity * [(.17 hours/response - .5 hours/response) * $60/
hour] = ($5,761.80).

    Title: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk 
Power System.
    Action: Proposed collection of information.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0244.

[[Page 42068]]

    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit 
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 
satisfies certain prior directives of the Commission, including a 
requirement to provide further guidance and specificity about 
reportable incidents of sabotage. The revised Reliability Standard 
requires reporting of specified system disturbances and potential 
events of sabotage in a timely manner, thereby allowing NERC as the 
Electric Reliability Organization, governmental authorities and 
relevant electric industry entities the opportunity to react. The 
revised standard accordingly enhances reliability in real-time through 
the opportunity to mitigate the impact of a disturbance, and in the 
future through investigation, analysis, and dissemination of lessons 
    30. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office 
of the Executive Director, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (202) 
502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

VI. Effective Date

    31. This order will become effective upon issuance.
    The Commission orders:
    (A) Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 is hereby approved as just, 
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory, and in the public interest.
    (B) NERC's proposed Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity 
Levels and implementation plan for Reliability Standard EOP-004-2 are 
hereby approved, including the retirement of existing Reliability 
Standards EOP-004-1 and CIP-001-2a when EOP-004-2 goes into effect.

    Issued: June 20, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
[FR Doc. 2013-16805 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]